LaborPains.org

According to President Obama, striking down the Affordable Care Act would be unforgivable judicial activism. According to his grassroots base, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was an unjustifiable vote in favor of unbridled corporate power. But according to one union, Citizens United is proof that Indiana’s right-to-work law unconstitutionally infringes unions’ free speech rights—by preventing unions from extracting dues from workers on the pretext that they are bargaining on workers’ behalf.

“Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and ‘impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.’” (Associated Press, 4/9/12)

It’s strange enough to see the President’s union allies hang their hopes for the status quo on a ruling slammed by his base. But the logic of the union’s case gets even stranger.

Local 150 claims that it “legitimately utilizes dues money collected through agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements” in order to “finance political speech,” among other things. Since Indiana’s right-to-work law bans agency shop agreements, it “restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow.”

It’s so crazy, it just might work—at least in the minds of the union’s imaginative attorneys. Even if it’s true, as Local 150 attorney Dale Pierson observes, that the courts require workers to pay unions “the costs of representing them’—and federal law mandates that unions represent all the workers—it’s quite a stretch to claim that union-selected political expenditures count as ‘representation.’

The recognized purpose of unions is to represent members’ interests inside the workplace in bargaining with employers—not to represent them outside the workplace by pushing whatever they consider their members’ best political interests to be.

In order to avoid giving Indiana House Republicans the quorum necessary to vote on right-to-work legislation, most House Democrats have been skipping work since the start of the 2012 legislative session. Yesterday, tax payers finally got their money’s worth when the Democrats showed up to the State House to do their job.

After a flurry of passionate floor speeches, House Bill 1001 passed 54-44. The bill will now move to the Senate, where it should easily pass and move on to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ (R) desk. Daniels has already indicated his approval of the bill, so it could be signed into law before the Super Bowl in Indianapolis next weekend.

Once Daniels signs the bill, Indiana will become the nation’s 23^rd right-to-work state, and the first in the traditionally union-frieldly Rust Belt. The last state to pass right-to-work legislation was Oklahoma in 2001.

The win in Indiana should be very encouraging for other states like New Hampshire and Michigan as they weigh their options regarding right-to-work legislation. A right-to-work bill has already passed the NH State House for a second time and could end up on Gov. John Lynch’s (D) desk again soon. Last November Republicans were only 12 votes shy of overriding Lynch’s veto for a similar bill.

The right-to-work battle is heating up in Indiana, and labor unions look desperate. So desperate in fact, that union leaders are contemplating disrupting the Super Bowl, which will be played in the Lucas Oil Stadium.

The Associated Press reports that around 50 Indiana labor leaders met this week for the AFL-CIO’s “labor Table” to discuss a strategy. With all eyes on Indiana on February 5, Big Labor wants to cash in on the free publicity and use the opportunity to bash right to work efforts in the state. The Teamsters are considering blocking the streets around the NFL village with truckers willing to risk arrest for their cause, and other union members could flood the streets marching in protest.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said they don’t expect the game to be disrupted, likely because the unions representing stagehands, carpenters, electricians and painters have a no-strike agreement with the board that runs the Indianapolis Convention Center. But other unions key to the overall success of the super bowl, such as hotel employees do not fall under the no-strike agreement.

It is clear from the hostile attitude of one Teamster organizer saying, “You can tell them we’ll take the Super Bowl and shove it,” that the good of the community might not be Big Labor’s number one interest. With Republicans in the state House and Senate hoping to vote on right-to-work legislation in the upcoming weeks, the half-time show might not be the only controversy at this year’s Super Bowl.

Back in November of 2011, Labor Pains told readers not to hold their breath for a 23^rd right to work state. This is why.

Close to a year after Indiana House Senate Democrats fled the state to protest Republican plans to curtail union rights, the legislators have employed a similar tactic to stall new right to work legislation by once again refused to show up last week.

While Indiana House Republicans have the votes to pass the measure, the House does not have the quorum it needs to conduct business without the Democrats in attendance.  If the House Democrats return, the legislature’s Republicans are expected to pass the measure without difficulty, holding a 60-40 majority in the House and a supermajority of 37-13 in the Senate.

In its last session, the Indiana legislature passed an anti-bolting statute, allowing daily fines of $1,000 to be assessed on members who are absent for three or more consecutive days without an excuse. Although these have yet to be imposed, the fines can be levied at the discretion of Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma.

One indication of the anti-bolting statute’s effectiveness is the recently scheduled vote on amendments to the bill, in which House Democrats are expected to attend this week.

Under the right to work legislation that Republicans are working to pass, employees at unionized private companies would not be required to pay dues to the union. If the bill passes, Indiana would become the first right to work state in what’s considered to be the nation’s traditional manufacturing belt.

Gov. Mitch Daniels, along with other supporters, argues that the bill would attract more jobs to Indiana–a state hit with 9 percent unemployment.

Given the likelihood that the bill will clear the House and Senate, Indiana workers may be able to breathe a little easier.

After the successes of New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker in tempering the power of public sector unions, the failure of Senate Bill 5 in Ohio was a difficult loss. But the desire to curb Big Labor’s power is not completely lost; Ohio and Indiana are proving otherwise – even if the odds are against them.

Despite the recent defeat of Ohio Senate Bill 5, Ohioans have set their sights on ending forced union membership. “Ultimately, freedom to associate also means freedom not to associate,” said Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law to The New American. Thompson heads the organization, which is one of several attempting to pass a right to work law in Ohio. If the newly proposed “Workplace Freedom Amendment” is approved by Ohio voters in November 2012, then the state will become the 23^rd state to protect the freedom of choice for its employees – unless Indiana beats them to it.

Indiana leaders also have their eye on the right to work prize. In the 2011 session, right to work legislation was tabled after House Democrats fled the state forcing the Indiana House to shut down. Passing such legislation looks more promising this time around, especially since Governor Mitch Daniels is reportedly willing to put his weight behind the bill. Indiana Republicans control both the House and the Senate, so the votes are likely there. That leaves Indiana Democrats with only the extreme option of once again fleeing the state.

Yet despite the somewhat favorable political environment, observers doubt that either Ohio or Indiana will become the 23^rd right to work state. Right to work legislation hasn’t been successfully passed since the 1980’s, with the exception of Oklahoma in 2001. The reason? Labor unions will fight these efforts tooth and nail. It is estimated that Unions spent up to $50 million to successfully fight against SB5 in Ohio.

An excellent example of just how difficult it is to pass this kind of legislation can be seen in Colorado. In the fall of 2008, Colorado sought to pass right to work legislation, Amendment 47. In response, unions launched four “poison pill” measures, Amendments 53, 55, 56, and 57. These initiatives would have been “devastating to Colorado’s economy,” said Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce president Joe Blake to the Colorado Statesman.

The poison pill measures were more or less introduced as union bargaining chips in order to kill Amendment 47 by effectively blackmailing businesses – and it worked. Members of the business community struck a deal and pledged $3 million to defeat Amendment 47 in exchange for the removal of the offending measures. Amendment 47 did not pass, and Colorado was left with its hybrid right to work law, which allows employees by a vote of 75 percent or more, to eliminate right to work privileges and become a closed shop.

Union leaders are so desperate to retain their members that they are willing to go to almost any length to make sure right to work legislation is out of play. Right to work legislation is a great way to expand employee rights, but history suggests you shouldn’t hold your breath for it to pass in either Ohio or Indiana.

Time for some more union mythbusting. Today’s lesson centers on an old union chestnut about right-to-work laws, which forbid unions from collecting dues without the employee’s individual consent. Such laws, which are on the books in 22 states, are despised by unions. No surprise there. So it is also no surprise that Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott is fretting about a proposed right-to-work law in her state, painting an apocalyptic picture for us in the Indianapolis Star:

Wages for all workers are driven down. Both union and non-union workers in states with these laws make an average of $5,538 less a year than those who live in states without the law. …

Overall quality of life declines. In addition to the decreased buying power of those in right-to-work states, the infant mortality rate is 16 percent greater while the poverty rate for all people is 19 percent higher and is 26 percent higher for children. Seven of the 10 poorest states are right-to-work states.

The notion that right-to-work laws lead to lower wages and more poverty is cited constantly by labor leaders. The AFL-CIO calls right-to-work “right-to-work-for-less”.

These claims are transparently preposterous. Guyott does nothing to prove that right-to-work laws actually cause lower wages. All her statistics prove is that right-to-work laws tend to be more popular in the conservative South and West, which are generally poorer than, say, the Northeast.

Causation is always difficult to prove for an issue like this. But as long as we’re trying, a far better indicator than wages or the poverty rate is overall economic growth. And here the numbers are clearly in favor of right-to-work laws. Americans for Prosperity looked at the data and found that right-to-work states had 1.3 percent higher productivity growth, 8.7 percent higher job growth, and 8.1 percent higher economic growth between 1997 and 2007. AFP also found that unemployment tended to be lower in right-to-work states. (And unions are all about creating jobs, right?)

But organized labor knows this. The AFL-CIO studied the figures from 2000 and 2009, and found that income dropped an average of 3 percent in right-to-work states and 5 percent in union shop states. Funny how that never made it into a Richard Trumka stump speech. Not good news for anyone, but worse news for union shop states.

Politifact Wisconsin consulted several economists on this issue. They generally agreed that right-to-work states had higher income growth, though they disagreed over the extent of causation.

What we do know is that right-to-work laws protect worker freedom and make it harder for unions to siphon money from employees. “Right-to-work-for-less”? More like right-to-ignore-the-facts.

Image courtesy of Icky Pic.

As President Barack Obama said two years ago, “Elections have consequences”. He’s probably less enthusiastic about that bromide today — as are the unions who campaigned on his behalf. As the New York Times reports, state officials are gearing up to take on organized labor:

State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.

But in some cases — mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities — officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.

The explanation for all this from the unions is that newly-elected Republicans are looking to exact revenge because organized labor spent so much money on Democrats in 2010. But that doesn’t explain Cuomo. It also doesn’t explain the massive public pension problems facing state lawmakers. The aforementioned Indiana, for example, has more than $442 million in unfunded public-sector pension liabilities as of last year.

It’s not all bad news for labor though. There will still be jobs for union hotshots in the New York Attorney General office.

Image courtesy of James Durkee.