Right to Work Good For Pay and Benefits

Right to Work Good For Pay and Benefits

By prohibiting compulsory union dues, state Right to Work laws spur the growth of private-sector employee compensation in the form of wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses, as well as employment growth. Sources: U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. Labor Department Private-Sector Compensation Growth Lags in Forced-Unionism States (Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Even union bosses and their apologists sometimes grudgingly admit that long-term private-sector job growth in states that currently have Right to Work laws on the books far outpaces job growth in states that lack such pro-employee statutes. This fact is indeed hard to deny. From 1990 to 2010, according to the U.S. Labor Department, private-sector payrolls in Right to Work states soared by 32.0% -- an increase triple that of forced-union-dues states combined. Over the past decade alone, nationwide private-sector employment fell by 3.3% due to the impact of the severe 2008-2009 recession. But Right to Work states experienced an overall private-sector job increase, while forced-unionism states suffered a 5.5% aggregate job loss. Big Labor tries to downplay the significance of Right to Work states' large, persistent employment-growth advantage by suggesting that the jobs created outside of forced unionism's dominion are "the wrong kind." Unfortunately for union propagandists, however, U.S. Commerce Department data show that Right to Work states also enjoy a large, persistent advantage over forced-unionism states with regard to growth of private-sector employee compensation (including wages, salaries, bonuses and benefits). Real Compensation Grew Nine Times as Much Over Past Decade In Right to Work States

Want Jobs and Rising Income Levels? Pass Right to Work

The Investor's Business Daily confirms that enacting Right to Work laws is a recipe for jobs and economic growth: The business world is abuzz over the National Labor Relations Board's complaint vs. Boeing's new South Carolina production line. For NLRB critics, the case boils down to one thing: "right-to-work" laws. Right-to-work states have generally lower unemployment, higher job growth, lower taxes and better business climates. They have growing populations and have been attracting businesses from other states. In most states, once a workplace is unionized, employees are required to join the union or they can't work there. But 22 states, including South Carolina, have passed laws that give employees the right not to join. Hence the term "right-to-work." Unions dislike these laws for the obvious reason: It reduces their membership.

Fred Barnes "Is there anything Obama won’t do for unions?"

  Former murdered Mineworkers International presidential candidate “Jock” Yoblonski’s campaign manager and Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes reminds us that Obama has created more Big Labor Boss paybacks than just the NLRB v. Boeing case. Besides the Obama National Labor Relations Board’s assault on Boeing’s South Carolina employees and workers in Right To Work states in general, Barnes mentions the recent new regulations proposed by DOL to hamper employees getting to hear both sides of the story during union organizing campaigns. But, the main focus of the article is the Obama Administration’s repeated attempts to overturn multiple defeats of unions to organize DELTA airlines. If you want to get more outraged at the Obama administration for its continuous assaults on free enterprise and individual employee choices, then read Barnes’ America’s Labor Party, Is there anything Obama won’t do for unions? Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite: How far will President Obama go to advance the interests of organized labor? Awfully far. We know this not only from the effort to keep Boeing from building a plane in a right-to-work state, South Carolina, but also from the way Delta Airlines is being railroaded into recognizing unions its employees have repeatedly rejected.

Fred Barnes "Is there anything Obama won’t do for unions?"

  Former murdered Mineworkers International presidential candidate “Jock” Yoblonski’s campaign manager and Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes reminds us that Obama has created more Big Labor Boss paybacks than just the NLRB v. Boeing case. Besides the Obama National Labor Relations Board’s assault on Boeing’s South Carolina employees and workers in Right To Work states in general, Barnes mentions the recent new regulations proposed by DOL to hamper employees getting to hear both sides of the story during union organizing campaigns. But, the main focus of the article is the Obama Administration’s repeated attempts to overturn multiple defeats of unions to organize DELTA airlines. If you want to get more outraged at the Obama administration for its continuous assaults on free enterprise and individual employee choices, then read Barnes’ America’s Labor Party, Is there anything Obama won’t do for unions? Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite: How far will President Obama go to advance the interests of organized labor? Awfully far. We know this not only from the effort to keep Boeing from building a plane in a right-to-work state, South Carolina, but also from the way Delta Airlines is being railroaded into recognizing unions its employees have repeatedly rejected.
DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint takes on the NLRB again his Human Events column: Like so many federal programs, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has expanded its mission far beyond its original purpose in order to wage ideological battles on the taxpayers’ dime. The NLRB was never meant to micromanage where companies can locate or how many products they can manufacture, as the NLRB under the Obama administration is currently seeking to do. To stop it, Congress should exercise its power of the purse to return the board to its original mission. The NLRB was originally established to oversee union elections and investigate violations of federal labor laws. These days it’s doing less of that than ever. In 1980, the NLRB conducted 8,531 union elections around the country, with a budget of $108 million. In 2009, it oversaw only 1,704 union elections, with a budget of $261 million. Union membership has plummeted by more than 40% since the 1980s. The rapid collapse of organized labor in America’s private sector has reduced the need for union elections—and thus, the NLRB itself—by 80% over the last three decades. Yet its budget—adjusted for inflation—remains essentially unchanged. Hence the board’s recent drift into freelance assaults on economic freedom: While 20% of its budget may be needed to perform its real job, the board seems to be misusing the other 80% for ideological mischief. The current NLRB is expanding its mission far beyond the original intent. Consider what Craig Becker, an NLRB appointee who was rejected by the Senate and then recess-appointed by President Obama, has said. “Just as U.S. citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as theirmonopoly-bargaining agent.” Not only has the NLRB launched an unprecedented attack on right-to-work states and job creators, it is now actively silencing nonunion workers in order to give unions a leg up in its legal case against The Boeing Company. This branch of the federal government, charged with protecting workers' rights, is suing a company on behalf of workers who are not in danger of losing their jobs, while refusing to listen to the concerns of three workers whose jobs actually are threatened by the NLRB's own actions. And the NLRB is now suing two states, Arizona and South Dakota, in an effort to overturn democratically passed laws that protect a worker's right to a secret ballot in those states. The NLRB is actually taking the stance that union bosses should be able to force workers to sign cards in public to join a union, a practice known as "card check," instead of making the decision in private without fear of intimidation. This is not enforcement—this is extremism.
DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint takes on the NLRB again his Human Events column: Like so many federal programs, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has expanded its mission far beyond its original purpose in order to wage ideological battles on the taxpayers’ dime. The NLRB was never meant to micromanage where companies can locate or how many products they can manufacture, as the NLRB under the Obama administration is currently seeking to do. To stop it, Congress should exercise its power of the purse to return the board to its original mission. The NLRB was originally established to oversee union elections and investigate violations of federal labor laws. These days it’s doing less of that than ever. In 1980, the NLRB conducted 8,531 union elections around the country, with a budget of $108 million. In 2009, it oversaw only 1,704 union elections, with a budget of $261 million. Union membership has plummeted by more than 40% since the 1980s. The rapid collapse of organized labor in America’s private sector has reduced the need for union elections—and thus, the NLRB itself—by 80% over the last three decades. Yet its budget—adjusted for inflation—remains essentially unchanged. Hence the board’s recent drift into freelance assaults on economic freedom: While 20% of its budget may be needed to perform its real job, the board seems to be misusing the other 80% for ideological mischief. The current NLRB is expanding its mission far beyond the original intent. Consider what Craig Becker, an NLRB appointee who was rejected by the Senate and then recess-appointed by President Obama, has said. “Just as U.S. citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as theirmonopoly-bargaining agent.” Not only has the NLRB launched an unprecedented attack on right-to-work states and job creators, it is now actively silencing nonunion workers in order to give unions a leg up in its legal case against The Boeing Company. This branch of the federal government, charged with protecting workers' rights, is suing a company on behalf of workers who are not in danger of losing their jobs, while refusing to listen to the concerns of three workers whose jobs actually are threatened by the NLRB's own actions. And the NLRB is now suing two states, Arizona and South Dakota, in an effort to overturn democratically passed laws that protect a worker's right to a secret ballot in those states. The NLRB is actually taking the stance that union bosses should be able to force workers to sign cards in public to join a union, a practice known as "card check," instead of making the decision in private without fear of intimidation. This is not enforcement—this is extremism.

Right To Work freedom = Prosperity

Right To Work freedom strongly linked to economic prosperity explains Vincent Vernuccio in his Townhall post: The NLRB’s complaint is in fact a back-handed compliment to right-to-work laws, because it is based on the assumption that right-to-work laws help attract businesses. The preponderance of the evidence favors that position. As Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, from 2000 to 2009 right-to-work states “grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.” A recent analysis by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shows that right-to-work states created 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector, had 3.5 percent faster income growth, and 46 percent higher business growth than forced union states between 1993 and 2009. And, according to a recent National Right to Work Committee analysis of Department of Labor data, over the past 10 years, the top five states in creating new jobs are right-to-work states, while the bottom five are forced unionism states. Workers in right-to-work states also have more disposable income than those in forced unionism states. In right-to-work states, unions must demonstrate to workers that their service has value or they will refuse to join. As in other areas of the economy, competition makes providers of goods and services—in this case the representation services of labor organizations—more efficient and responsive.
If We Honor Liberty.....

If We Honor Liberty.....

Not many states honor liberty like New Hampshire. Their license plates boldly proclaim "Give me liberty or give me death." To say that forced unionism runs counter to that philosophy is an obvious statement.  Senator Jim Forsythe makes that case in the Union Leader newspaper: Most Granite State citizens take their freedom and liberty seriously, which shouldn't be surprising since our state’s motto is “Live Free or Die.” Yet each and every month, tens of thousands of Granite State workers are forced to surrender a portion of their paychecks to a union just to have a job and feed their family. And to add insult to injury, the unions turn around and use this forced-dues cash to bankroll causes and politicians that many of these workers who are forced to pay union dues would strongly disagree with. I should know, since the unions mailed negative campaign material against me since I was openly campaigning on passing right-to-work legislation. This is antithetical to the idea of freedom. No American should be forced to pay dues to any private organization as a condition of employment.