Mark Mix Archives

MIX: Democratic Party’s Big Labor backbone

Right to Work top target for union allies From the Washington Times: As President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden campaign for re-election, they feel compelled time and again to remind anyone who has gathered to hear them that America's economic troubles started well before they got to the White House. [media-credit name=" " align="alignright" width="480"][/media-credit]American voters surely know that. The Obama ticket's real problem is that more and more voters are coming to understand that the current administration has no clue about which policies would help the national economy, and workers in particular, get back on track. Emblematic of the president's befuddlement was his jibe against Right to Work laws at a Labor Day rally in Toledo, Ohio. Right to Work laws make it illegal to deny an applicant a job or to fire an employee simply for refusing to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union. Mr. Obama insisted without offering any evidence that individual freedom of choice over union affiliation is somehow bad for wages and salaries. At a campaign event in Detroit the same day, Mr. Biden repeated basically the same canard and vowed that the Obama administration would block national Right to Work legislation. What are the facts about Right to Work and employee compensation? Nationwide, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show that wage and salary disbursements to private-sector employees grew by just 1.8 percent from 2000 to 2010. That's the smallest gain for any decade since the Great Depression. But regional data show that employees and job seekers in the 22 states that had Right to Work laws on the books at the beginning of the millennium fared far better than average, with real private-sector wages and salaries increasing by 8.6 percent, or nearly five times the national average.

Labor Day National Right To Work on C-Span

Labor Day Statement: “Union Officials Are Mounting A Billion Dollar Campaign to Reelect President Barack Obama”

Forced-dues funded billion dollar machine enables union officials to wield immense political clout, even though voluntary union membership continues to steadily decline Washington, DC (August 31, 2012) – Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee, released the following statement regarding this year’s Labor Day holiday. “This Labor Day, many workers will enjoy a well-deserved long weekend. But as we celebrate with friends and family, union officials are mounting a billion dollar campaign to reelect President Barack Obama and elect more pro-forced unionism allies in Congress. “Throughout the United States, tens of millions of American workers are already compelled to pay dues or fees to union officials as a condition of getting or keeping a job.  And millions more workers are required by law to accept a union’s so-called ‘representation,’ even if they would rather negotiate with their employer themselves on their own merits. “Recently, the National Institute For Labor Relations Research and Wall Street Journal independently reported that Big Labor spends about four times on politics and lobbying than what was previously thought.  This forced-dues funded billion dollar machine enables union officials to wield immense political clout, even though voluntary union membership continues to steadily decline.

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

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

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?

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?

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

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."