LaborPains.org

You’d be hard pressed to miss the news that organized labor suffered one of its largest one-year losses in membership in years. While the AFL-CIO is out spinning, our executive director, Rick Berman, weighed in at the Washington Examiner:

The updated membership number is 11.3 percent of the total workforce—the lowest it’s been since the 1930s. In 34 states, union membership tumbled. Among those is Michigan, which has yet to feel the effect from becoming a right-to-work state.

Across the country, state governments are starting their legislative sessions and are filing bills that would reform labor law. Pennsylvania lawmakers will be mulling a package of reforms, including right-to-work. Colorado is doing the same. Even Kansas, already a right-to-work state, is looking at labor law changes: Its legislators are looking at a public sector union paycheck protection bill.

Filed under “this is awkward,” the Philadelphia Daily News reports (via Philly.com) that its parent group, Interstate General Media (IGM), has given the employees of the News, Philly.com, and the Philadelphia Inquirer an ultimatum: Come to a union agreement by Friday or we’ll liquidate. Although the newsroom staff has a contract that runs until October, the company’s ten remaining unions are currently working without a deal.  We’re looking forward to some interesting reporting by these union members as they give us the play-by-play of their own fate.

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), believing (correctly) that right-to-work laws are a draw for businesses, advertised as much in the Wall Street Journal last week. But not everyone is happy: Opponents of the legislation are appalled that the ad invoked the popular advertising slogan, “Pure Michigan.” MEDC’s president defended his company’s decision: “Freedom to work is now a law of the state of Michigan, and our job is to sell to the business community all the advantages they may have in doing business in Michigan.” General Motors, for one, agrees.

Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has ordered that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) begin to accept compensation in lieu of reinstatement in all cases of unlawful discharge or layoff. Prior to this, “front pay,” as it’s known, was only done in side letters, outside the reach of the NLRB. Statistics show that this appears to be a reflection of a trend of declining rates of acceptance of reinstatement offers.

Now that the dust has (mostly) settled in Michigan, we can take a closer look at what Michiganders can look forward to.

The state will, for the time being, remain a union powerhouse, as current union contracts will not be affected by the change. Right-to-work kicks in upon their expiration. But even without an immediate change, there is the potential for a quick advance for Michigan. There are numerous examples of how Indiana has already benefited from going right to work in February.

And as The Wall Street Journal explains, the economic calculation isn’t an easy task, and certainly not one that is easy to dramatize with a single number. A few highlights offered by WSJ include the fact that in the past three years, private employment has grown 4.9 percent in right-to-work and 3.9 percent in forced unionism states. Other numbers on total compensation vary from state to state, based on industries and other factors. But Mark Arend, editor in chief of the business magazine Site Selection told the WSJ, ”Companies will be more seriously inclined to look at a state if it’s right-to-work.”

And Michigan is likely to gain new residents as well. Vincent Vernuccio and Joseph Lehman of the Mackinac Center say that Michigan was the only state to lose population from 2000-2009. And according to the Miami Herald, one study shows:

Between 1980 and 2010, the economies in right-to-work states grew 3.3 percent annually; in the rest of the states, 2.6 percent. It is certainly no coincidence that between 1984 and 2011, the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in right-to-work states more than doubled, from 74 to 157.

Of course, one of the most practical, noticeable gains is in worker freedom. Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post explains:

No one should be forced to join a union against his or her will. It is antithetical to a free people to have the state invest unions with the power to collude on labor costs and take union dues against employees’ will. Liberals are in favor of forcing employees to join a union; conservatives are in favor of allowing employees to choose not to and to protect employees’ property rights against compulsory dues deduction.

Photo via Flickr user david_shane – Used with Creative Commons Attribution License

It’s no surprise that Michigan’s unions came out in force to protest Michigan’s right-to-work law over the past two weeks. One group of protesters, however, deserves a gold star: the teachers who “called in sick” so that they could join the loud and violent throngs marching through Lansing.

Most reports indicate that the number of striking teachers ran to several hundred. Yet while the exact figure isn’t  known, one number is not in dispute:  26,000 Michigan students had classes canceled because of the high absenteeism. In the metro Detroit area, three entire school districts closed on Tuesday due to a lack of teachers. The President of the Detroit Federation of Teachers also estimated that “several hundred” of his fellow Detroit Public Schools teachers joined him outside the capital.

The teachers abandoned their chalkboards for the streets at the urging of the Michigan Education Association (MEA). The absentees must not have finished reading the memo, however, as it only requested them to take off “after work.” Either way, the MEA—the largest labor union in the state—has good reason to fear right-to-work: it’s bad news for an organization that spent $134 million last year but only took in $122 million. If there are any teachers who never liked that they were forced to pay dues just to keep their jobs, these revenues will surely decline.

Perhaps the MEA should be more worried about the fate of the students its members are supposed to teach. In Detroit, only 7 percent of the 8th grade students passed their readings tests, and only 4 percent registered proficient in math. Meanwhile, the state recently received a “D” grade for its K-12 student achievement.

Thanks to their antics in Lansing this week, Michigan’s teachers have lost another bargaining chip with their students. The next time they chastise a student for skipping class, the student need only point out that the teachers did the exact same thing this past Tuesday.

Rick Berman weighs in on Michigan’s right-to-work legislation:

This has been the year of personal freedom. In 2012, voters across the country consistently reaffirmed their desire to see individual choice trump institutional power. In November, Michigan voters rejected the enshrinement of collective bargaining in the state’s constitution. In Colorado and Washington, they demanded the right to decide for themselves about marijuana use. In other states, the people demanded the right to define marriage for themselves apart from religious doctrine or the authority of the state.

Given these events, it’s no surprise that even in an organized labor-stronghold like Michigan, the people, through their representatives, demanded that they be able to choose their own destiny in the workplace. They don’t want to be forced into unions that may no longer represent their best interests on the shop floor, at the negotiating table, or at the ballot box. Michigan’s right-to-work law is yet another victory in a year of triumphs for individual freedom.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/13/personal-freedom-wins-in-michigan/#ixzz2ExIbX4XM

In the wake of Michigan becoming the 24th right-to-work state, numerous commentators have recognized that if employees aren’t forced to be members, unions may actually have to appeal to them. What a novel idea—free choice. It’s not something that most unions are used to dealing with. That’s reflected in the clear disconnect in political spending done by labor.

And even in employment and collective bargaining matters, unions don’t appear to have even the most basic employee interests in mind — like making sure theykeep their jobs. As was the case in the Hostess bankruptcy and eventual liquidation, the leadership of the Baker’s Union (BCTGM) was willing to push the entire enterprise over the cliff, putting thousands of people out of work. It continued to spin myths about the prospects of a buyout in order to encourage solidarity. The BCTGM’s failed campaign against American Crystal Sugar has left thousands of its union members out of work. Meanwhile, BCTGM President Frank Hurt and his family continue to collect thousands in compensation.

Michigan became the 24^th right-to-work state on Tuesday when Governor Rick Snyder signed two bills ensuring that employees will not be forced to pay a union just to keep their jobs. Police and fire unions were the only ones not included in the reforms.

While labor makes grand plans for a response after a long, loud, and violent day of protesting, little is mentioned on what this means for unions and their members.

The most popular misconception is that right-to-work laws eliminate all collective bargaining and do not allow employees to unionize. That’s wholly incorrect. Right-to-work laws change the status quo: rather than forcing employees to pay the union, either by member dues or non-member agency fees, those employees can opt out of this compulsory association.

At the heart of the right-to-work issue is something often ignored in reporting and in the debate: freedom. As President Obama said, politics have dominated the right-to-work conversation.  That should not be the case. The idea that someone must pay another just to be able to hold a job is a bizarre concept, but it’s one that has long been considered acceptable. An employee should have the freedom to work wherever he or she is hired and not be forced to pay a third party for the privilege.

Michigan is the second state this year to go right-to-work—Indiana did so in February. This is another step in the long history of labor reform. Instead of looking for ways to turn back progress, labor unions should consider the reasons why members want to be able to avoid them.

For the past week we’ve heard from breathless activists and politicians and biased journalists ranting about the Michigan legislature and governor moving to give the state’s citizens the freedom to work. Add the President of the United States to that list. According to the White House transcript, Barack Obama told a crowd in Michigan:

[W]hat we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions.  We shouldn’t be doing that.  These so-called “right to work” laws, they don’t have to do with economics; they have everything to do with politics.  What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.

First, it’s clear that Obama took notes on labor talking points after his meeting with union leaders last month.  “Right to work for less” is a tired old labor slogan, dragged out of the rhetorical trash every time a state legislature tries to reform labor laws.

Second, and more importantly, Obama is half right—if not for politics, it’s doubtful that either party, including Democrats, would be in favor of compulsory association and payment. But Democrats have benefited from labor unions, using member rolls to get out the vote and to collect dues that go towards political activity. This year was no different, as labor came out strong for Obama. The President’s continued support of forced unionism is part of the payback to labor that he failed to accomplish with EFCA in his first term.

If these dues did not go towards supporting politicians, which one would stand up and advocate for union dues and agency fees? Obama has put politics, and political money, ahead of what should be a basic right.

Right to work is also about economics and jobs. Michiganders need look no further than their neighbors to the south, Indiana. The Mackinac Center found that in the few months since Indiana passed its own right-to-work bill, the state has gained 43,000 jobs while Michigan has lost 7,300. And as Rich Lowry notes in the New York Post:

One study, by a University of Minnesota economist, looked at states bordering one another with and without right-to-work laws. It found “an abrupt change” when crossing the border into a right-to-work state, and “that manufacturing’s share of total employment increases about one-third.”

The benefits for the citizens of the soon-to-be 24 states that enjoy the right to work are advantages of freedom and economics.