LaborPains.org

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.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) legal efforts to derail The Boeing Company from opening a new production plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, prompted 41 Republican senators to retaliate against President Obama and his pro-union NLRB. The senators wrote in a letter to Obama last Thursday that they’d “use all procedural tools available to defeat” the confirmations of two board members unless he withdrew their nominations immediately.

Specifically, the senators vowed to oppose the nominations of the board’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and board member Craig Becker, a former attorney who has represented both the AFL-CIO and Service Workers International Union (SEIU), who we’ve written about before.

For a hint at just how frustrated the 41 senators are, here’s a bit more of the letter sent by them to President Obama:

The Senate has been unacceptably denied the ability to exercise its constitutional duty of advice and consent in regards to the NLRB.

In light of the NLRB’s recent actions that would have a deleterious effect on job creation and economic opportunity across the country, it is time to hold the NLRB accountable.

We urge you to withdraw both Mr. Solomon’s and Mr. Becker’s nominations to their respective positions immediately.

If not, we will vigorously oppose both nominations, vote against cloture and use all procedural tools available to defeat their confirmation in the Senate. …

Is this move against Boeing what President Obama meant when he told the AFL-CIO in August 2010 that he was going to “restore some balance” to the NLRB and make it easier for workers in the aerospace industry to unionize? It certainly seems that way.

Image courtesy of: vgm8383

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.

Last week we discussed the dire situation of several states’ pension funds. But while many states are headed for stormy waters, today brought two very positive developments that indicate labor unions’ stranglehold on state governments may be loosening.

First from Pennsylvania:

Three of the largest state employee unions wanted to remove one of the more pressing issues that Gov.-elect Tom Corbett will find on his doorstep when he walks into office on Jan. 18. They sought a one-year extension to their labor contracts that expire June 30.

Leaders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13, Pennsylvania Social Services Union Local 668 and United Food and Commercial Workers approached outgoing Gov. Ed Rendell as well as members of Corbett’s transition team about the idea.

While Rendell saw advantages for his successor to not have to deal with labor negotiations right off the bat as he did when he first was elected in 2003, the incoming governor showed no interest when the two discussed the matter last week.

This was a desperate attempt by the unions to head off Corbett, who has promised to cut state spending and not raise taxes. Corbett, a fiscal conservative, will be far more likely to crack down on organized labor than Rendell. Thus the unions need Rendell to solve their problems — and quickly. Kudos to him for turning them down.

Meanwhile Indiana may join the ranks of right-to-work states:

Republicans in the Indiana House have filed bills that would prevent workers from being required to pay union dues, an issue considered so divisive that Gov. Mitch Daniels would prefer to avoid it.

The so-called right-to-work legislation could move forward anyway since Republicans have full control of the General Assembly after winning a House majority in last month’s election. The bills would prohibit companies from making union dues or membership a requirement of employment.

Daniels is understandably nervous about spending lots of political capital on what’s sure to be an acrimonious battle against the unions. (One Indiana Democrat is already claiming that right-to-work laws discriminate against women and minorities.) If the bill does pass, it would make Indiana the 23rd right-to-work state.

Image courtesy of tricky ™.