Oklahoma's Right to Work Anniversary -- A Success Story!

Oklahoma's Right to Work Anniversary -- A Success Story!

  In 2001, Sooners defied Big Labor by approving a statewide ban on forced union dues. Since its Right to Work law took effect, Oklahoma has become a national leader in private-sector compensation and job growth.   Oklahoma Celebrates Right to Work Anniversary -- Sooner Experience Reinforces Case For Federal Forced-Dues Repeal (Source: October 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) On September 25 a decade ago, one of Big Labor's most formidable fear-and-loathing campaigns ever failed when Oklahoma approved a statewide ban on compulsory union dues and fees and thus became the nation's 22nd Right to Work state. Almost immediately, the very union bosses who had been shrilly predicting that a Sooner Right to Work law would swiftly lead to disaster moved to prevent the law from having any impact at all. When the Right to Work law had been in effect just seven weeks, Big Labor lawyers launched an underhanded bid to overturn it. This legal attack kept the law's future under a cloud for an extended period. The state's attorneys and Right to Work attorneys intervening on behalf of several independent-minded workers prevailed in 2003 when the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously rejected AFL-CIO union kingpins' demand that it overturn the law. Oklahoma's Private-Sector Compensation Growth Has Far Outpaced U.S. Average "Since Big Labor's legal assault on Oklahomans' Right to Work was thwarted, the state has had one of the strongest economies in the country, as measured by a number of key indicators," said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee. "For example, from 2003 to 2010, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show private-sector employer outlays for employee compensation, including wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses, grew by 12.2% in Oklahoma, after adjusting for inflation. "Sooners' real private-sector compensation expanded at a rate more than three-and-a-half times as great as the national average of 3.4%, and faster than in 41 other states." Oklahoma Also a Standout For Job Creation
New evidence

New evidence "Right To Work boon for Oklahoma"

Families are fleeing compulsory unionism states and moving to Right Work States like Oklahoma.  And, that is not all that is OKay in Oklahoma since it became the 22nd Right To Work state in 2001.  From a recent analysis by J. Scott Moody and Wendy P. Warcholik of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs: On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma voters went to the polls and passed a constitutional amendment—Right to Work (RTW)—which gave workers the choice to join or financially support a union. This made Oklahoma the 22nd state in the union to join the ranks of Right To Work states. Fast forward to today, and opponents of the law are still at work trying to discredit it. A recent study by the [Big Labor related] Economic Policy Institute (EPI), for example, claimed that Right To Work in Oklahoma has been a dismal failure. One of EPI’s most important pieces of evidence is that manufacturing employment is lower today than it was before Right To Work. [However,] the EPI study did not consider whether Oklahoma’s manufacturing industry may have chosen to boost productivity instead of hiring more workers. Chart 1 shows the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the manufacturing industry from 2003 to 2010 using a growth index. Oklahoma’s manufacturing GDP has grown 45 percent in that time period, outstripping that of the average manufacturing growth in in non-Right To Work states (22 percent).
New evidence "Right To Work boon for Oklahoma"

New evidence "Right To Work boon for Oklahoma"

Families are fleeing compulsory unionism states and moving to Right Work States like Oklahoma.  And, that is not all that is OKay in Oklahoma since it became the 22nd Right To Work state in 2001.  From a recent analysis by J. Scott Moody and Wendy P. Warcholik of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs: On September 25, 2001, Oklahoma voters went to the polls and passed a constitutional amendment—Right to Work (RTW)—which gave workers the choice to join or financially support a union. This made Oklahoma the 22nd state in the union to join the ranks of Right To Work states. Fast forward to today, and opponents of the law are still at work trying to discredit it. A recent study by the [Big Labor related] Economic Policy Institute (EPI), for example, claimed that Right To Work in Oklahoma has been a dismal failure. One of EPI’s most important pieces of evidence is that manufacturing employment is lower today than it was before Right To Work. [However,] the EPI study did not consider whether Oklahoma’s manufacturing industry may have chosen to boost productivity instead of hiring more workers. Chart 1 shows the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the manufacturing industry from 2003 to 2010 using a growth index. Oklahoma’s manufacturing GDP has grown 45 percent in that time period, outstripping that of the average manufacturing growth in in non-Right To Work states (22 percent).

"Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm Makes the Case for Right to Work Laws"

Matt Mayer of the Buckeye Institute debunks the long-term economic growth without Right To Work freedom is sustainable. Mayer uses a Columbus Dispatch reporter Joe Hatlett column that featured Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to expose the fact that corporate welfare and reduced regulations ignore the “proverbial elephant in the room weighing down” compulsory union states like Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,, and Michigan. From Matt Mayer’s post: “With Michigan bleeding jobs and tax revenues, Granholm said she followed the corporate playbook in her attempt to close a huge state budget deficit and make Michigan more competitive. ‘In listening to the business community, I cut takes [sic] 99 times, and I ended shrinking government more than any state in the nation. In my two terms, I cut more by far than any state in the nation. And yet, we still have the highest unemployment rate. There was no correlation.’ Granholm conceded that streamlining business regulations and lowering taxes — Kasich’s economic recovery mantra — are helpful, but they aren’t a panacea…[l]abor costs, help with start-up costs and proximity to markets are other factors.” Hallett and Governor Granholm fail to mention why streamlining regulations and lowering taxes aren’t helping the northern states (located within 50 percent of the U.S. population and with low start-up costs) compete against the southern and western states. Instead, Hallett ignores the obvious answer and pleads for an end to corporate pork (with which we enthusiastically agree). The reason Michigan and Ohio can’t compete is that the southern and western states already have fewer regulations and lower taxes, so “catching up” with those states still leaves the proverbial elephant in the room weighing down the northern states. Plus, those states are also pushing for lower taxes and fewer regulations, so the northern states are perpetually behind them. The elephant, which Governor Granholm does hint at, is labor costs, or, more specifically, unionized labor costs (see: General Motors and the United Auto Workers). As I noted in Six Principles for Fixing Ohio, “Of course, tax and regulatory burdens also impact a state’s economy. Although many of the forced unionization states have heavy tax burdens and many of the worker freedom states have light tax burdens, some heavily taxed worker freedom states (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) had the strongest sustained job growth from 1990 to today. Similarly, a few moderately taxed forced unionization states still had weak job growth (Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri). The combination of both a heavy tax burden and forced unionization is deadly when it comes to job growth, as 11 of the 15 worst performing states are ranked in the top 20 for high tax burdens.” If Ohio and the other states from Missouri to Maine want to truly compete with Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, then those states need to enact laws that protect the rights of workers not to join a labor union to get a job.
"Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm Makes the Case for Right to Work Laws"

"Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm Makes the Case for Right to Work Laws"

Matt Mayer of the Buckeye Institute debunks the long-term economic growth without Right To Work freedom is sustainable. Mayer uses a Columbus Dispatch reporter Joe Hatlett column that featured Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to expose the fact that corporate welfare and reduced regulations ignore the “proverbial elephant in the room weighing down” compulsory union states like Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,, and Michigan. From Matt Mayer’s post: “With Michigan bleeding jobs and tax revenues, Granholm said she followed the corporate playbook in her attempt to close a huge state budget deficit and make Michigan more competitive. ‘In listening to the business community, I cut takes [sic] 99 times, and I ended shrinking government more than any state in the nation. In my two terms, I cut more by far than any state in the nation. And yet, we still have the highest unemployment rate. There was no correlation.’ Granholm conceded that streamlining business regulations and lowering taxes — Kasich’s economic recovery mantra — are helpful, but they aren’t a panacea…[l]abor costs, help with start-up costs and proximity to markets are other factors.” Hallett and Governor Granholm fail to mention why streamlining regulations and lowering taxes aren’t helping the northern states (located within 50 percent of the U.S. population and with low start-up costs) compete against the southern and western states. Instead, Hallett ignores the obvious answer and pleads for an end to corporate pork (with which we enthusiastically agree). The reason Michigan and Ohio can’t compete is that the southern and western states already have fewer regulations and lower taxes, so “catching up” with those states still leaves the proverbial elephant in the room weighing down the northern states. Plus, those states are also pushing for lower taxes and fewer regulations, so the northern states are perpetually behind them. The elephant, which Governor Granholm does hint at, is labor costs, or, more specifically, unionized labor costs (see: General Motors and the United Auto Workers). As I noted in Six Principles for Fixing Ohio, “Of course, tax and regulatory burdens also impact a state’s economy. Although many of the forced unionization states have heavy tax burdens and many of the worker freedom states have light tax burdens, some heavily taxed worker freedom states (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) had the strongest sustained job growth from 1990 to today. Similarly, a few moderately taxed forced unionization states still had weak job growth (Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri). The combination of both a heavy tax burden and forced unionization is deadly when it comes to job growth, as 11 of the 15 worst performing states are ranked in the top 20 for high tax burdens.” If Ohio and the other states from Missouri to Maine want to truly compete with Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, then those states need to enact laws that protect the rights of workers not to join a labor union to get a job.