Today's Wall Street Journal points out that union officials are pouring upwards of a billion dollars, much of it in compulsory dues, into the 2008 election cycle. The goal? A sea change of American labor law.
"This is an all-in bet for them in 2008," says Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, a group that fights down in the trenches against coercive union power. "As market cycles go, they're in their peak, we're in our trough, and they're looking for a clear two-year run" in an all-Democrat Washington.
Then there's the crown jewel:
Tucked into the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act is a provision called 14(b), which allows for "right to work" states. Big Labor last took a run at deleting this section, and forcing more unionization, in the Johnson administration.
Aside from abolishing employees' free choice of whether or not to join or pay dues to a union, wiping the current 22 state Right to Work laws off the map would deal a crushing blow to the American economy.
According to a recent study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, forced unionism cost the American economy upwards of $436 billion in GDP between 2000-2006 alone.
The yoke of compulsory unionism already takes a severe toll on states without Right to Work laws, the last thing America needs is to expand its reach.
Comments
Right to Work
From my own personal experiences, I would like to say to anyone who reads this is that labor unions are not needed in this country today.
I was formerly a union member (not by choice), and all I saw was my dues go he union officals for what amounted to no real leverage in keeping that job. This was in Texas, a right to work state, but here is where I was basically felt to comply to have my wages decducted for union dues; it was still coersion to join. In Texas, an employee must give consent to have dues deducted, even if he/she does not want to join the union. I was told by the shop steward that signing that piece of paper is a no choice deal. "If you want to work here, you have no choice bu to sign it." People, this is a subtle union tactic to skirt around right to work laws.
Stop paying crooks to hang around with other crooks!
Here is an example of a
Here is an example of a policy in a Texas company I work for.
When requesting for a lateral transfer to another department, an employee should give a minimum of 2 weeks notice, but time of transfer is in effect as department MANAGER decides. Your manager has the power to tie you up in his department for as long as he wants. Think that's fair? who will intervene in your behalf? In Texas, employers has absolute power and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. If you are an employer, come to Texas but if you are an employee, go else where. I still recall up until 4 years ago, my employer required us to work a mandatory 84 hrs in two weeks without overtime pay, Fair? you tell me....
A Hobson's Choice
While it is true that there are corrupt and exploitive employers, I do not see forcing workers to join or support a corrupt and exploitive union as an effective remedy.
the other side of 'right to work'
I live in Georgia-it's a 'right to work' state. I don't know anything about unions or how this all came to be but there is more to this than unions issues. For a non union employee-right to work means your employer can fire you without just cause. It also means that a server only makes half of minimum wage-in Georgia that translates into $2.30 an hour-NO ONE should make less than full minimum wage-yes servers make tips-but tips aren't always great and you pay taxes on them so a customer who only leaves 10% means you just made nothing. You can show up one day and be let go even though you haven't done anything wrong and you have NO recourse for resolution. These things are not right-have absolutely nothing to do with unions and actually seem to favor the 'bib business' this claims to protect against. In right to work states-your ight to work is not protected.