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

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

Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich support FDR's forced unionism policy

From BigGovernment com: As reported in the Boston Globe and as seen in the New Hampshire debate video, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich believe it is perfectly okay for the federal government to mandate that every private sector worker in the United States pay forced-dues to labor unions as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Attention Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich: Right To Work is not a states’ rights issue, it is a freedom issue. The Federal government should not mandate compulsory unionism. Mitt Romney from the Boston Globe, “Pressed by John Kalb, executive director of New England Citizens for Right to Work, about whether he would actively advocate for a federal law, Romney responded, ‘I’m a Tenth Amendment guy. I’d like the states to be the place we carry out this path.’” It appears that Forced Unionism is a Big Government idea that Newt & Mitt embrace. In fact, it was the brain child of our Biggest Big Government president, before Obama. Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 Wagner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now. Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?

Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich support FDR's forced unionism policy

From BigGovernment com: As reported in the Boston Globe and as seen in the New Hampshire debate video, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich believe it is perfectly okay for the federal government to mandate that every private sector worker in the United States pay forced-dues to labor unions as a condition of getting or keeping a job. Attention Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich: Right To Work is not a states’ rights issue, it is a freedom issue. The Federal government should not mandate compulsory unionism. Mitt Romney from the Boston Globe, “Pressed by John Kalb, executive director of New England Citizens for Right to Work, about whether he would actively advocate for a federal law, Romney responded, ‘I’m a Tenth Amendment guy. I’d like the states to be the place we carry out this path.’” It appears that Forced Unionism is a Big Government idea that Newt & Mitt embrace. In fact, it was the brain child of our Biggest Big Government president, before Obama. Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 Wagner Act used, for the first time, federal powers to force every working man and woman to pay a third party, Big Labor bosses, in order to get or keep a job. It was wrong then, and it is outrageous now. Why would Gingrich and Romney embrace it?

Murdock's defense of

Murdock's defense of "workers' rights"

Excerpts from Scripps Howard News Service and Hoover Institution Fellow Deroy Murdock's recent defense of "workers' rights" (link to complete column): Even as they scream for "workers' rights," the one workers' right that union bosses despise is the Right To Work.  Big Labor and its overwhelmingly Democratic allies oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to join a union. Instead, they prefer that predominantly male employers and labor leaders make that choice for her. The American Left has hoisted "choice" onto a pedestal taller than the Washington Monument. Liberals and their Big Labor buddies will race to their battle stations to defend a woman's right to choose to abort her unborn child. Meanwhile, they holler themselves hoarse to prevent her (and her male counterparts) from freely choosing to accept or avoid union membership. Sen. Jim DeMint introduced the National Right To Work Act this week. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., understands that exercising this choice is a basic human right, and neither private employment nor government work should require joining or paying dues to a union. "Many Americans already are struggling just to put food on the table," DeMint said, "and they shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs or face discrimination if they don't want to join a union." Thus, on Tuesday, DeMint introduced the National Right to Work Act. Notwithstanding that right-to-work states are comparatively prosperous engines of job growth, the case for right-to-work is not merely economic but also moral.

Murdock's defense of "workers' rights"

Murdock's defense of "workers' rights"

Excerpts from Scripps Howard News Service and Hoover Institution Fellow Deroy Murdock's recent defense of "workers' rights" (link to complete column): Even as they scream for "workers' rights," the one workers' right that union bosses despise is the Right To Work.  Big Labor and its overwhelmingly Democratic allies oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to join a union. Instead, they prefer that predominantly male employers and labor leaders make that choice for her. The American Left has hoisted "choice" onto a pedestal taller than the Washington Monument. Liberals and their Big Labor buddies will race to their battle stations to defend a woman's right to choose to abort her unborn child. Meanwhile, they holler themselves hoarse to prevent her (and her male counterparts) from freely choosing to accept or avoid union membership. Sen. Jim DeMint introduced the National Right To Work Act this week. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., understands that exercising this choice is a basic human right, and neither private employment nor government work should require joining or paying dues to a union. "Many Americans already are struggling just to put food on the table," DeMint said, "and they shouldn't have to fear losing their jobs or face discrimination if they don't want to join a union." Thus, on Tuesday, DeMint introduced the National Right to Work Act. Notwithstanding that right-to-work states are comparatively prosperous engines of job growth, the case for right-to-work is not merely economic but also moral.

Union Dons Take Care of Themselves, Not Workers

Union Dons Take Care of Themselves, Not Workers

(Source: August 2010 NRTWC Newsletter) Unlike Unionized Workers' Pension Funds, Union Bosses' Are Secure Mark Mix: Enactment of a National Right to Work law "would greatly strengthen union officials' incentive to do what's best for the employees they purport to represent, rather than feather their own nests." Credit: C-SPAN There's no denying the fact that federal labor law grants union officials extraordinary power over unionized employees. More candid apologists for union monopoly bargaining and forced union dues and fees have long acknowledged that fact. Authorizing union bosses to get workers who don't wish to join a union fired for refusing to fork over union dues or fees is coercion, blunt Big Labor apologists concede, but it is for the workers' "own good." In Practice, Forced Unionism Is Impossible to Defend Big Labor academic Allan Pulsipher once explicitly defended compulsory unionism as a "legitimate form of coercion in a free market economy"! Reasonable people may disagree about whether it is theoretically possible that a worker could benefit from being forced to allow an unwanted union to have "exclusive" power to negotiate