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
Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Writing for the Indianapolis Political Examiner, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz confronts Big Labor's misinformation campaign against Right to Work laws head-on: While at the Statehouse on Organization Day, I took some time to speak to some of the protesters in the hallways about potential ‘Right to Work” (RTW) legislation.  I made it a point to keep an open mind and listen to their arguments against RTW.  After speaking to about half a dozen or so, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against RTW are not based on logic, but based on emotion; albeit the emotion is fear and it is the most powerful of emotions, but it still a pathos-driven argument. I reached the conclusion that the arguments were emotionally-based, because the “logical” arguments against RTW aren’t very logical at all.  Allow me to walk through the main points. Right to Work is really right to work for less The data shows that when adjusted for costs of living, salaries in right to work states are comparable to non-RTW states. RTW is a way to break the unions Unions still exist under RTW laws, membership just can’t be compelled.  If a union is providing quality service and responding to its members needs, it shouldn’t have to worry about members bolting and leaving their ranks. RTW allow non-union workers to “freeload” off the union. When the employees agree to form a union, they can decide whether the collective bargaining agreement applies only to members or all employees.  So if a union decides to represent people who aren’t members and aren’t paying dues then that sounds like a personal problem to me. RTW interferes with an employer’s right to contract I find this argument the most intriguing.  Primarily since it usually comes from people who have no problem imposing government regulations on business (i.e. smoking bans), but for some reason this regulation they have some concern.