Right to Work is about Freedom and Jobs not Political Parties

Right to Work is about Freedom and Jobs not Political Parties

President Obama, pandering to a crowd of Democrat party AFL-CIO union activists, attacked Right to Work laws as being more about politics than economics when the inverse is true -- opposition to Right to Work laws is about the Big Labor-owned Democrat party not economics. The President's own Department of Commerce's proves our point: Somethings never CHANGE, no matter how much we HOPE it does. Today the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis posted annual personal income data for 2011 on its web site. The data show that Right to Work states continue to enjoy a substantial income growth advantage over forced-unionism states. The Right to Work growth advantage is especially strong when it comes to private-sector compensation – that is, the wages, salaries, bonuses and benefits businesses provide for their employees. From 2010 to 2011 alone, private-sector compensation increased by 2.2% in the 22 Right to Work states, after adjusting for inflation with the U.S. Labor Department’s consumer price index (CPI-U). In the 28 compulsory-unionism states, real private-sector compensation increased by just 1.7%. (Just this month, Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state as the law banning forced union dues and fees signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels in early February took effect.) Over the past 10 years, from 2001 to 2011, real private-sector compensation in Right to Work states grew by 12.5%. That increase is four times as great as forced-unionism states’ aggregate gain of just 3.1%.

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

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

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar digging into Indiana Caterpillar has been a mainstay Illinois-based company for generations but no longer.  The power and influence of big labor has impacted the company for too long, damaging its bottom-line and hurting workers. Now that Illinois' neighbor, Indiana, has become a Right to Work state, Caterpillar is exploring their options, according to The Detroit News' Robert Laurie: Back in 2009, Barack Obama announced that Caterpillar had promised to rehire some of its laid-off workforce if his stimulus proposal passed. This week, the nation's largest manufacturer of mining and construction equipment announced that it would be moving a factory from Canada to Indiana. In the process, it will create 450 new jobs in the state. You'd think the president would be happy, but this is not quite what he had bargained for. Take note, Governor Snyder. Caterpillar's move came almost immediately after Indiana passed a right-to-work law, which will make union dues voluntary in the state. Labor officials claim Right To Work will deplete union funds, making it much more difficult for them to organize factories. Coincidence? Workers who were formerly employed at the London, Ontario factory have been locked out since the beginning of the year after their union refused to accept pay cuts which would have kept the operation profitable. As a result of Big Labor's obstinance, these jobs have been permanently eliminated and the plant relocated. The work will now be done in Muncie, [Indiana].

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar: Goodbye Illinois, Hello Indiana's Right To Work

Caterpillar digging into Indiana Caterpillar has been a mainstay Illinois-based company for generations but no longer.  The power and influence of big labor has impacted the company for too long, damaging its bottom-line and hurting workers. Now that Illinois' neighbor, Indiana, has become a Right to Work state, Caterpillar is exploring their options, according to The Detroit News' Robert Laurie: Back in 2009, Barack Obama announced that Caterpillar had promised to rehire some of its laid-off workforce if his stimulus proposal passed. This week, the nation's largest manufacturer of mining and construction equipment announced that it would be moving a factory from Canada to Indiana. In the process, it will create 450 new jobs in the state. You'd think the president would be happy, but this is not quite what he had bargained for. Take note, Governor Snyder. Caterpillar's move came almost immediately after Indiana passed a right-to-work law, which will make union dues voluntary in the state. Labor officials claim Right To Work will deplete union funds, making it much more difficult for them to organize factories. Coincidence? Workers who were formerly employed at the London, Ontario factory have been locked out since the beginning of the year after their union refused to accept pay cuts which would have kept the operation profitable. As a result of Big Labor's obstinance, these jobs have been permanently eliminated and the plant relocated. The work will now be done in Muncie, [Indiana].