The American Thinker examines how big teachers union have become impediments for needed education reform: American public education may be in crisis, but teachers are fairly happy with their lives, according to a new Gallup poll: The…
The American Thinker blog lives up to its name with a post analyzing the faulty logic behind big labor's ACLU supported lawsuit attempting to overturn Michigan's Right to Work law: Do you recall what happened at the Wisconsin state Capitol building in March 2011, when the state Senate was considering legislation to curb public employee unions? For days, union members trashed the place. They blew horns. They swore at legislators unfortunate enough to cross their path. Litter was everywhere. Meanwhile, all Senate Democrats high-tailed it to Illinois, trying to prevent a vote. Not the prettiest exercise in representative democracy. In Michigan last December 6, someone at the Republican-controlled legislature decided not to have a replay of Wisconsin. The state police locked the doors at one point during afternoon debates over the proposed right-to-work law, with supporters and opponents who had already gained entrance staying inside. Four hours later, the House and Senate reopened the doors before both houses voted to pass the legislation. On Dec. 11, Gov. Rick Snyder signed it, making Michigan the 24th right-to-work state, which means employees in the Wolverine State can work without having to join a union.
Sylvia Bokor outlines the critical connection between the Right to Work and individual rights: The Right to Work clause came into existence in 1935, embedded in the Taft-Hartely Law. It means that (a) employees may not be forced to join a union, that (b) employers need not hire only those who agree to join a union, and (c) that employers need not fire employees for failing to join a union or pay union dues. What does this mean in dollars and cents? Consider one of the worse-case scenarios: the Nelson Index ranks New Mexico, a non-Right to Work state, below the national average. Recently, the Rio Grande Foundation published its study of the effect of Right to Work on business growth and increased personal income in New Mexico. The Foundation concluded that were New Mexico to become a Right to Work state, "[b]y 2020, New Mexico would have 42,300 more people working ... [and that] the state's personal income would be nearly $5 billion higher, and wage and salary income would be $2.2 billion higher." But why? Why does prohibiting the use of force have such a hugely beneficial effect on economic growth and prosperity? The National Institute of Labor Relations Research answers the question. Mr. Greer begins his article by correctly identifying the foundation of the Right to Work clause: "Big Labor propaganda against Right to Work legislation and laws rarely focuses on the principle at stake: freedom of association." Later he states: "... Right to Work laws are not merely or even primarily an economic development tool. Right to Work laws and legislation are really a matter of freedom, not economics." True. But go deeper still. Individual rights are the foundation of freedom. "Freedom is the absence of force." Without individual rights, freedom does not exist. To the extent one's rights are violated, to that extent is one's freedom is curtailed, ultimately to be destroyed altogether. By definition, individual rights include the assurance that no man may violate the rights of another with impunity. A culture permeated by freedom is a culture enjoying the essential condition for prosperity: protection and recognition of individual rights. Philosophically, the Right to Work clause is the recognition of man's right to think for himself, to make his own choices and decisions -- i.e., his right to life. Personal happiness fuels productivity. Prosperity results. So why do union bosses continue to block implementation of the RTW clause?