Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Right to Work States Enjoy 'Growth Advantage'

Compulsory Unionism Negatively Correlated With Compensation Growth (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) 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. Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued its estimates for 2011 state personal income. The BEA also issued estimates for an array of specific kinds of income, including employee compensation, at the state level. The 2011 BEA income data in general, and the compensation data especially, show once again that there is a strong negative correlation between compulsory unionism and economic growth. Overall, private-sector employee compensation (including wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) grew by 6.4% nationwide over the past decade, after adjusting for inflation. Historically speaking, this was slow growth. However, states that protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union typically fared far better than the rest. (From 2001 to 2011, 22 states had Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union dues on the books. Last month Indiana became the 23rd Right to Work state.) A review of how compensation and jobs grew (or failed to grow) in each state suggests the U.S. Congress could dramatically improve America's economic prospects for the next decade by repealing forced union dues and fees nationwide. Current federal law authorizes and promotes the payment of compulsory union dues and fees as condition of getting or keeping a job. Right to Work States' 2001-2011 Compensation Increase Nearly Double the National Average
Government Union Bosses Challenged in Arizona

Government Union Bosses Challenged in Arizona

But Big Labor-Appeasing GOP Legislators May Block Reform Measures (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) Arizona has had a Right to Work law on the books for over six decades. And it has no statewide statute handing union officials monopoly-bargaining privileges over state and local government employees. Nevertheless, today many government union bosses in Arizona enjoy special privileges you might expect to find only in notorious Big Labor stronghold states like neighboring California. For example, in Phoenix, as columnist George Will pointed out last month, taxpayers fork over $900,000 annually to pay for the compensation of police union officials as they "work exclusively performing undefined union business, including lobbying . . . ." Mr. Will, citing the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, added that all six of the top officers of the union "derive full pay and benefits from the city, although each is assigned full time to the union -- and each is also entitled to 160 hours of annual extra-pay overtime." So-Called 'Meet-and-Confer' Schemes: Monopoly Bargaining in Disguise
Will Congress End Union Thugs' Free Ride?

Will Congress End Union Thugs' Free Ride?

International longshore union President Bob McEllrath has publicly encouraged lawlessness by his militant followers in Washington State. For example, last September 7 he participated in an illegal blockade of grain terminal deliveries. Credit: Dawn Des Brisay-Longshore Shipping News Freedom From Union Violence Act Would Close 'Lethal Loophole' (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) This month, pro-Right to Work U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) will introduce an important legal reform known as the Freedom from Union Violence Act. This bill would hold union officials who plan, commit, or foment extortionate violence against a firm's employees or owners to the same standard as business rivals, gangsters, or anyone else who does the same. Legislation Would Bar Use Of Violence as a Union 'Organizing Tool' Parallel legislation was introduced in the U.S. House earlier this year as H.R.4074 by Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.). Like Mr. Lee, Mr. Broun is one of the most outspoken opponents of compulsory unionism in Congress today. If H.R.4074 is enacted, power-hungry, win-at-any-cost Big Labor barons will no longer be able, without fear of federal prosecution, to resort to violence as a union "organizing" or "bargaining" tool. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, vowed over the course of the next few months to mobilize hundreds of thousands of members and other citizens to contact their federal elected officials and express their strong support for this legislation. It's 'Extraordinarily Difficult' to Prosecute Union Lawbreakers Mr. Mix explained: "In today's America, prosecutions of Big Labor arson, assaults, death threats, and other serious crimes are extraordinarily difficult. "Such prosecutions are frequently hindered because of a loophole in federal law that exempts extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pursuant to so-called 'legitimate union objectives.'
Will Congress End Union Thugs' Free Ride?

Will Congress End Union Thugs' Free Ride?

International longshore union President Bob McEllrath has publicly encouraged lawlessness by his militant followers in Washington State. For example, last September 7 he participated in an illegal blockade of grain terminal deliveries. Credit: Dawn Des Brisay-Longshore Shipping News Freedom From Union Violence Act Would Close 'Lethal Loophole' (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) This month, pro-Right to Work U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) will introduce an important legal reform known as the Freedom from Union Violence Act. This bill would hold union officials who plan, commit, or foment extortionate violence against a firm's employees or owners to the same standard as business rivals, gangsters, or anyone else who does the same. Legislation Would Bar Use Of Violence as a Union 'Organizing Tool' Parallel legislation was introduced in the U.S. House earlier this year as H.R.4074 by Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.). Like Mr. Lee, Mr. Broun is one of the most outspoken opponents of compulsory unionism in Congress today. If H.R.4074 is enacted, power-hungry, win-at-any-cost Big Labor barons will no longer be able, without fear of federal prosecution, to resort to violence as a union "organizing" or "bargaining" tool. Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, vowed over the course of the next few months to mobilize hundreds of thousands of members and other citizens to contact their federal elected officials and express their strong support for this legislation. It's 'Extraordinarily Difficult' to Prosecute Union Lawbreakers Mr. Mix explained: "In today's America, prosecutions of Big Labor arson, assaults, death threats, and other serious crimes are extraordinarily difficult. "Such prosecutions are frequently hindered because of a loophole in federal law that exempts extortionate violence from prosecution when it is committed pursuant to so-called 'legitimate union objectives.'
Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Mark Mix: President Barack Obama is jeopardizing the very constitutional balance of the United States in order to pay off his union benefactors. But Right to Work officers and supporters are fighting back. Credit: Fox News Legislative Challenge to 'Ambush' Election Scheme Now Pending (source: National Right To Work Committee March 2012 Newsletter) On Capitol Hill, in federal court, and at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Right to Work proponents are now helping spearhead efforts to stop the Obama Administration and Big Labor from dragooning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional workers into forced-dues-paying ranks every year. President Barack Obama instigated his latest showdown with Right to Work proponents on January 4, when he installed three new members on the five-member NLRB through "recess appointments," despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was manifestly not in recess. "The phony 'recess' appointments to the NLRB that President Obama made at the beginning of this year illegally circumvented at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution," charged National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "First, Article II, Section 2 grants to the chief executive the power to appoint 'officers of the United States,' but only 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' "The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when 'vacancies happen during recesses of the Senate' may the President make temporary 'recess' appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber." President Claims Constitutional Definition of 'Recess' Can't Be Used to Limit His Power "Second, Mr. Obama and his Justice Department have attempted to justify his so-called 'recess' appointments by effectively asserting that it is the President's prerogative to declare that the Senate is in recess at any moment when the chamber is not actually conducting business," Mr. Mix continued. "But the constitutional definition of 'recess' in Article I, Section 5 contradicts this theory. That's why the White House is now contending this provision can't be used to restrict the President's appointment power."
Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress

Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress

Mark Mix: "The only reason Hoosiers had to battle against the Big Labor machine for years to enact a Right to Work law is that Congress imposed forced unionism on their state . . . ." Credit: wsj.com   Indiana Right to Work Battle 'Really Resonates With Americans' (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Hoosier legislators' approval early this year, by decisive margins in both chambers of the General Assembly, of H.B.1001, a measure making Indiana America's 23rd Right to Work state, is giving a boost to freedom-loving citizens' efforts to secure votes in the U.S. Congress on national Right to Work legislation. Wall Street Journal "Potomac Watch" columnist Kim Strassel alluded to the potential impact of a Right to Work victory in Indiana on a Fox News broadcast aired January 14, just as the battle at the state capitol in Indianapolis was heating up: "This is an issue in Indiana that really resonates with Americans . . . 'Are you going to be forced to join a union and pay dues?' Most Americans don't agree with that. If Republicans can frame that in a national debate, it definitely helps them." Bad Federal Policy Is the Reason Indiana Had to Pass a Right to Work Law Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, later commented on Ms. Strassel's observation: "Of course, scientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.
Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest

After years of intensely lobbying their elected officials and mobilizing their fellow citizens, pro-Right to Work Hoosiers saw a measure prohibiting forced union dues and fees signed into law this month. Indiana Becomes the 23rd State to Abolish Forced Union Dues (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Just as this edition of the National Right to Work Newsletter went to press, Indiana became the 23rd state to adopt a Right to Work law prohibiting union officials from taking money from employees' paychecks as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In the late afternoon on January 25, a 54-44 majority in Indiana's state House of Representatives stood up to taunts and threats emanating from the hundreds of union bosses and other Big Labor militants who had been crowding the halls of the capitol for hours. Consequently, H.B.1001, a measure making it illegal to fire employees for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union, was adopted and sent to the state Senate. On February 1, the Senate, which had already passed another version of the Right to Work legislation, 28-22, approved H.B.1001 and sent it to GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels's desk. Heeding the pleas of thousands and thousands of Hoosiers who passionately oppose compulsory unionism, late last year Mr. Daniels had publicly announced he was strongly in favor of making Indiana a Right to Work state.