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].

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

While four of the current 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have signed and returned surveys pledging 100% support for Right to Work if elected, so far front-runner Mitt Romney and two others have not. Credit: Fox News Right to Work Committee Intensely Lobbies Presidential Hopefuls (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) As the 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses begin this month, millions and millions of Americans are looking for a clear alternative to the Obama Administration's relentless promotion of compulsory unionism. Ever since he became U.S. President three years ago, Barack Obama has eagerly championed Big Labor power grabs in Congress and selected forced-unionism zealots for leadership positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Labor Department, and other federal bureaucracies. But polls show the vast majority of all Americans who regularly vote in federal elections believe the Obama Administration is just plain wrong to favor forcing workers to pay union dues to get a job. And opposition to pro-forced unionism federal policies is especially intense among likely voters in the states where the crucial first contests for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are taking place. Surveys recently conducted for the National Right to Work Committee by respected pollster Kellyanne Conway confirm that likely voters in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries this month overwhelmingly agree that federal labor laws should either protect the Right to Work, or be scrapped completely. 'Will the Next President Of the United States Stand up to Big Labor?' Ms. Conway's scientific survey, conducted November 18-21 by live interviewers at a computer-assisted telephone facility, found that 72% of likely Granite State primary voters believe federal law should "definitely not" allow "labor union officials to have a worker fired . . . for not paying union dues or fees." An additional 9% said federal should "probably not" allow that.

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

While four of the current 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have signed and returned surveys pledging 100% support for Right to Work if elected, so far front-runner Mitt Romney and two others have not. Credit: Fox News Right to Work Committee Intensely Lobbies Presidential Hopefuls (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) As the 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses begin this month, millions and millions of Americans are looking for a clear alternative to the Obama Administration's relentless promotion of compulsory unionism. Ever since he became U.S. President three years ago, Barack Obama has eagerly championed Big Labor power grabs in Congress and selected forced-unionism zealots for leadership positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Labor Department, and other federal bureaucracies. But polls show the vast majority of all Americans who regularly vote in federal elections believe the Obama Administration is just plain wrong to favor forcing workers to pay union dues to get a job. And opposition to pro-forced unionism federal policies is especially intense among likely voters in the states where the crucial first contests for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are taking place. Surveys recently conducted for the National Right to Work Committee by respected pollster Kellyanne Conway confirm that likely voters in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries this month overwhelmingly agree that federal labor laws should either protect the Right to Work, or be scrapped completely. 'Will the Next President Of the United States Stand up to Big Labor?' Ms. Conway's scientific survey, conducted November 18-21 by live interviewers at a computer-assisted telephone facility, found that 72% of likely Granite State primary voters believe federal law should "definitely not" allow "labor union officials to have a worker fired . . . for not paying union dues or fees." An additional 9% said federal should "probably not" allow that.

Damn Our Union Members,

Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Why Right To Work Laws Are Important While Big Labor Bosses continue to pour forced-union dues into campaigns to stop Right To Work freedom, they also continue to shower Barack Obama with forced-dues money even-though Obama just killed a pipeline project that would have created jobs for 20,000 workers, many of which would be union members. If most of their members had the Right To Work, they could stop paying dues and force union officials to pay attention to union member jobs rather playing politics with union families' income. From Lachlan Markay's post: The Obama Administration’s decision to forego the Keystone pipeline has forced the country’s labor groups into a bitter civil war. At issue is the central purpose of the labor movement: those who feel it should represent workers in the workplace generally oppose the administration’s decision; those who see unions as primarily political organizations have generally supported it. Unions that had a stake in the Keystone decision were livid that the administration abandoned it, and equally angry at their fellow union members who had supported that decision, according to a Friday report from Politico Pro ($): “People are p****d,” said one U.S. labor official who supports the proposed TransCanada pipeline. “The emotions are really, really raw right now. This is a big deal.” “It’s repulsive, it’s disgusting and we’re not going to stand idly by,” Laborers’ International Union of North America General President Terry O’Sullivan told POLITICO. “The rules have changed. So we’ll react accordingly.”… But other top figures in the labor movement defended the decision. Their argument: re-electing President Obama is a higher priority than preserving union jobs, and to that end, unions had to prevent Republicans from gaining the upper hand on the top political issue of the day.

Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Damn Our Union Members, "There's Bigger Fish to Fry"

Why Right To Work Laws Are Important While Big Labor Bosses continue to pour forced-union dues into campaigns to stop Right To Work freedom, they also continue to shower Barack Obama with forced-dues money even-though Obama just killed a pipeline project that would have created jobs for 20,000 workers, many of which would be union members. If most of their members had the Right To Work, they could stop paying dues and force union officials to pay attention to union member jobs rather playing politics with union families' income. From Lachlan Markay's post: The Obama Administration’s decision to forego the Keystone pipeline has forced the country’s labor groups into a bitter civil war. At issue is the central purpose of the labor movement: those who feel it should represent workers in the workplace generally oppose the administration’s decision; those who see unions as primarily political organizations have generally supported it. Unions that had a stake in the Keystone decision were livid that the administration abandoned it, and equally angry at their fellow union members who had supported that decision, according to a Friday report from Politico Pro ($): “People are p****d,” said one U.S. labor official who supports the proposed TransCanada pipeline. “The emotions are really, really raw right now. This is a big deal.” “It’s repulsive, it’s disgusting and we’re not going to stand idly by,” Laborers’ International Union of North America General President Terry O’Sullivan told POLITICO. “The rules have changed. So we’ll react accordingly.”… But other top figures in the labor movement defended the decision. Their argument: re-electing President Obama is a higher priority than preserving union jobs, and to that end, unions had to prevent Republicans from gaining the upper hand on the top political issue of the day.