New Book Plugs One-Sided 'Right' to Unionize

New Book Plugs One-Sided 'Right' to Unionize

In a just-published book, Big Labor academic Richard Kahlenberg and union lawyer Moshe Marvit (inset) advocate full protection for the right to join a union, but only nominal protection for the right not to join. Credit: The Century Foundation Carnegie Mellon University Big Labor Academics Oppose Equal Protection For Right Not to Join (source: National Right To Work Committee April 2012 Newsletter) The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the principal federal law regulating employee-employer relations in America's private sector, purports to uphold the right to "form, join or assist labor organizations" and also "the right to refrain from" forming, joining or assisting such organizations. But the NLRA fails utterly to give equal protection to workers who don't want a union. For example, under the NLRA as interpreted by the courts, workers have only a nominal right not to join. As nonmembers, they don't have the right to refuse to pay dues or fees to a union, and still keep their jobs, whenever union officials can obtain "exclusive" bargaining privileges. On the other hand, the NLRA fully protects the freedom of employees who want a union to join and pay dues; it doesn't matter at all if their employer and the majority of their fellow employees oppose unionization. Pro-union employees cannot legally be fired or otherwise discriminated against for joining or financially supporting a union under any circumstances. 'True Civil Rights Are Two-Way Streets'
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.
Right to Work State Economies Grow Faster

Right to Work State Economies Grow Faster

Private-Sector Employees and Employers Alike Reap Major Benefits (Source: July 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Today, American employees and employers across the country are working hard and using their ingenuity to help their businesses recover from the severe 2008-2009 recession. Unfortunately, an array of laws and regulations imposed by the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucrats are hindering the efforts of workers, managers, and business owners. And the federal policies that authorize the firing of roughly 6.3 million private-sector employees should they refuse to pay union dues or fees as a job condition are among the very worst, if not the worst, obstacles to economic recovery. One indication of the damage wrought by the pro-forced unionism provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) is the state-by-state gross domestic product (GDP) data reported by the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to BEA data, from 2000 to 2010, the combined real output of the 22 states with Right to Work laws protecting employees from the forced-union-dues provisions in the NLRA grew by 21.8%. That percentage gain is well over half again as large as the combined real 2000-2010 growth of the 28 states that still do not protect employees from forced union dues. To put it another way, had the entire country grown by as much as current Right to Work states did over just this ten-year period, by 2010 our national GDP would have been $13.674 trillion in constant, "chained" 2005 dollars, roughly $575 billion above the actual figure. Forced Dues Not Justified, Morally or Economically
Right To Work Committee Mobilizes Against NLRB Power Grab

Right To Work Committee Mobilizes Against NLRB Power Grab

If the Obama-selected top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board gets his way, Boeing will have no real choice but to abandon a brand-new $2 billion plant and 1,000 good jobs in Right to Work South Carolina. Obama Bureaucrat Eager to Tell Businesses Where They May Expand (Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Lafe Solomon, the man President Obama has selected to be the top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), outraged millions of Americans across all regions of the country in April by asserting his agency has the prerogative, in many instances, to tell businesses where they may or may not expand. For decades, the NLRB has called the shots with regard to implementation of the National Labor Relations Act, the nation's principal federal labor law. The NLRA covers over 90% of private-sector businesses and front-line employees. The NLRB is thus, no doubt, powerful. Nevertheless, the claim of power by NLRB Acting General Counsel Solomon in his April 20 complaint filed to block Boeing from initiating a new aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina is remarkable. As economist Arthur Laffer and senior Wall Street Journal editorial page economics writer Stephen Moore noted in a pungent op-ed appearing in the Journal May 13, this is "the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a [new] plant within the U.S." Well-informed apologists for compulsory unionism like New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse and former Clinton-appointed NLRB Chairman William Gould don't dispute that the Boeing complaint is, to quote Mr. Greenhouse, "highly unusual." Acting General Counsel: Sensible Business Decision Equals 'Anti-Union Animus'