Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

Pundits, Labor Policy Specialists Explain Why Right to Work's Right For Indiana, America

(source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) I submit that the real [Right to Work] debate is about unions' fear that if this legislation passes, members will run out the door and their decline will be hastened. Instead of unions fighting [Right to Work], they should ask why their members would want to leave in the first place . . . . Abdul Hakim Shabazz, editor, Indypolitics.com, Indianapolis Star, January 11, 2012 [U]nion contracts do not have to cover nonunion employees. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed unions' ability to negotiate "members only" contracts. Unions voluntarily negotiate contracts covering all workers, members and nonmembers alike. They do so because union contracts benefit some workers at the expense of others. Unions do not want to let the workers they hurt opt out. . . . Unions want everyone under their contract, especially those they hold back. James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics, Heritage Foundation, Miami Herald, January 7, 2012 I think this is really almost a life-and-death issue for Indiana. Twenty percent of Indiana's workforce is in manufacturing . . . . They have got to be competitive with the southern tier of [Right to Work] states we saw on the map, or those companies will inevitably migrate. There's a lot of outmigration in Indiana right now. The level of real incomes is falling because of all the manufacturing going to the [Right to Work] South. It is a make-or-break deal for Indiana . . . . Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor, Wall Street Journal, "Journal Editorial Report," Fox News, January 14, 2012 How significant is the lack of a [Right to Work] law in Indiana? We estimate if Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, . . . Indiana's personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion. Nearly $19 billion in annual income was lost because of Indiana's lack of a [Right to Work] law. Alternative statistical estimates yield slightly smaller but still highly robust results. Richard Vedder, economics professor, Ohio University (and two coauthors) "Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future," January 2011
Big Labor; Big Money; Big Lies

Big Labor; Big Money; Big Lies

Brietbart.com looks at the upcoming torrent of political spending fueled by forced union dues money: The largest American labor federation promised this week it would launch the most aggressive campaign effort in the labor movement's history, tapping at least 400,000 union members to fill the voter contact and get-out-the-vote voids in the larger Democratic operation. AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka formally endorsed President Barack Obama on Wednesday, though it came as no particular surprise: labor's 2008 contributions to Democratic candidates neared a record half-billion dollar threshold. All while draining pension funds, the same groups have pledged to contribute another $400 million to the president's reelection effort later this year, putting Big Labor’s total contribution to Barack Obama’s political career at well over a billion dollars. But the presidential contest is just one front of a grand operation wherein a number of marquee statewide races -- gubernatorial and legislative bouts in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota are said to register atop their agenda -- will be targeted.
Teacher Union Local Hauled-in more than $139 million, Spent Lavishly on Staff

Teacher Union Local Hauled-in more than $139 million, Spent Lavishly on Staff

New York's forced dues have been very good to teacher union bosses according to a report release by the Education Intelligence Agency.  And, New York teachers aren't the only ones paying for extravagant union boss salaries and benefits: Top 36 Teacher Union Locals Took In $337.7 Million. For the first time ever, the Education Intelligence Agency has compiled in one table the finances of the highest-earning teacher union local affiliates in the nation. Using Internal Revenue Service data from the 2009-10 school year, the table, posted on the EIA web site, contains revenue information and employee compensation figures for each K-12 teacher union local affiliate that accumulated more than $2 million in total revenue that year. The 36 affiliates that met the threshold received $337.7 million in total revenue. Topping the list was the United Federation of Teachers in New York City with more than $139 million - a 1 percent increase over 2008-09. UFT also had the highest employee compensation expenditures - a 12.8 percent increase to $47 million. United Teachers Los Angeles ranked a distance second with more than $44.4 million in revenue, while the Chicago Teachers Union ranked third with almost $30.1 million. The top 15 locals were all either American Federation of Teacher affiliates or merged NEA/AFT affiliates, highlighting the difference in structures of the two organizations. NEA's state affiliates are the primary source of funds and services while in AFT the locals rule the roost. The highest-earning "NEA only" local was the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association at $4.3 million. Of the 36 locals listed, 27 saw boosts in revenue over the previous year, but some experienced financial difficulties. The Detroit and Cleveland locals were forced to use dues revenue to cover investment losses.
It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

It's a Civil Right to Join or Not Join a Union without coercion

The latest poll driven rhetoric from the union bosses is the claim that union compulsion should be a civil right under color of law.  Anthony Davies, a professor at Duquesne University looks behind the rhetoric noting that the problem with Big Labor's proposed law because it makes compulsory unionism a 'right' for Big Labor while taking away from employees' freedom to not join or be compelled to pay tribute to a union boss. A recent op-ed in The New York Times called for new labor laws that will ensure that workers have the right to organize labor unions. These laws already exist, so what are unions griping about? It’s not that workers are being prevented from unionizing. The problem, as unions see it, is that it is too difficult to force workers to unionize. Free workers have weighed the costs and benefits of today’s unions and most have freely chosen to do without them. It is this free will that unions — and their advocates on the country’s op-ed pages — seek to quash. Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 7% not because unions have failed, but because they have done so well that — at least for the present — they are no longer needed. The exploitation of employees by their employers is a thing of the past; in fact, nowadays it seems like we’re more likely to hear about union bosses exploiting union members than about employers exploiting employees. Today, no matter how much labor leaders and their advocates pretend otherwise, labor reform means reforming unions.