Right-to-Work: Time to Move Forward

The legislative battle over right-to-work ended late this morning; if the noise of chanting protesters outside my office window is any indication, however, the issue will linger for some time. And that’s OK — if those disagreeing act in a responsible manner. That’s the way our free society is supposed to work.

How long will the lingering last? The obvious answer is at least November and the next election. One of the Senate Democrats speaking against the bill this morning said that this will awaken his party’s supporters. And that’s OK — that’s the way the system is supposed to work.

No one has proclaimed right-to-work will be the silver bullet that will immediately bring thousands of jobs to our state. (But one Indiana company indicated it is now staying and a Michigan business has invited previously ruled out Indiana to compete for its relocation). It is another important tool, accompanying the other contributors to our state’s strong business climate, one that will put Indiana in the running for many more jobs and economic opportunities. And our state’s batting average is pretty good when it has a chance to be in the game.

The evidence is there for those willing to listen — unions will not go away, safety will not slip, health care and pensions won’t be threatened. Will wages dramatically increase or decline? Probably not.

Right-to-work is here. It’s time to move on at the Statehouse to other important issues; it’s time throughout the state to let individuals have the choice of whether or not they wish to pay union dues as a condition of getting or keeping their job; it’s time for more companies to consider — and choose — our state for their relocations and expansions and the jobs they will bring.

Chamber media statement

Legislative Report summary

 

‘First, Do No Harm’ Should Apply in Schools

Far, far too many times criticism of K-12 education is seen as an attack on teachers. In the vast majority of cases, it’s not the educators in the classroom (or anywhere in the school building for that matter) who are standing in the way of what is in the best interests of students.

Consider these recent cases from around the country (courtesy of the Education Action Group):

  • For one Michigan educator, the annual costs of “non-membership” in the local, state and national teacher unions total $544.28. Andrew Buikema has been trying to leave the union since last spring, when he realized that union leaders were uninterested in helping the district control costs, even in the face of a multi-million dollar deficit.

 
“They keep asking for more and more, even though the school district can’t afford it,” he told EAG. “They’re concerned about taking care of the adults and have no consideration for the kids. I don’t want to be part of an organization that says one thing and does another,” he said.   

The union responded to his resignation request last month by sending approximately 150 pages of documents. The upshot of all those documents is this: Buikema can technically quit both unions, but he must still pay them $544.28 in “service fees,” which equals 67.7 percent of a normal union membership.
 

  • These days a lot of school budgets are being held together by the accounting equivalents of bailing wire and duct tape. But one Pennsylvania school district is so broke that it needs the state to provide the wire and the tape.

The Chester Upland School District began this week with only $100,000 in its savings account, and had no way of meeting its $1 million payroll – that is, until a judge ordered the state to give the district a  $3.2 million advance in its allowance.

The money will allow the teachers to be paid and the lights to remain on, at least for a few more weeks. The district is on track to be $20 million in debt by the end of the school year.

Since 2006, Chester Upland’s enrollment has dropped by almost 1,000 students. During that same time, the district has increased its workforce by 145 employees and its budget by $28 million.

  • Florida’s Marion County school district drew national headlines last summer when it announced that it was switching to a four-day school week as a way to save money. 

Other school officials took a more conventional route by laying off teachers and cutting student programs, all the while blaming Gov. Rick Scott for underfunding Florida’s public schools.

Now comes a report that finds 946 school employees in the Sunshine State earned at least $100,000 in 2010. That’s up 818 percent from 2005, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability.

The foundation also finds the percentage of non-school employees who earn at least six-figures has increased by only 7 percent during that same period.

 “During these five years, you have flat student enrollment, the biggest recession since the Great Depression and skyrocketing six-figure salaries – that adds up to a raw deal for Florida parents and taxpayers,” says Foundation CEO Tarren Bragdon.

Heritage Looks at Indiana’s Push for Right-to-Work

More analysis on right-to-work and seperating fact from fiction from the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry:

Heritage’s James Sherk says the law is a common-sense solution for states wanting to create more job opportunities for workers.

Right-to-work laws reduce the financial benefit from organizing workplaces where unions have limited support. This makes unions less aggressive and encourages business investment, creating jobs. States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states.

Sherk’s analysis also found that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages, despite union claims to the contrary. Opponents of Indiana’s bill are making that argument a major issue in their campaign to defeat the effort.

While supporters in Indiana maintain their focus on the bill’s effect on job creation, there’s also a case to be made about the anti-American concept of forced unionization. Currently in Indiana, the government gives workers no choice. Their dues — 1 percent to 2 percent of wages — are given to union bosses, often to advocate for an agenda that workers might not support.

Passage of the bill in Indiana could boost efforts in other states. Last year New Hampshire lawmakers adopted a right-to-work bill, only to have it vetoed by the governor. The New York Times noted other campaigns in Maine, Michigan and Missouri.

Prejudiced Push Poll Results Fail to Reflect Reality

The following is a statement we released this afternoon:

A new poll released today by the Indiana State AFL-CIO is a biased attempt to misrepresent strong public support for right-to-work among Indiana voters.

“This is a biased push poll (worded to elicit a certain response), not a fair or objective measure of support for right-to-work,” asserts Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar. “This is comparable to the political poll, for example, that asks ‘if you knew Congressperson X cheated on his or her spouse, would you be more or less likely to vote for him or her?’”

AFL-CIO survey respondents were told that right-to-work would “result in many fewer Indiana workers having union representation” prior to being asked their opinion on the issue.  In contrast, the scientific polling conducted for the Indiana Chamber since 2005 has posed this question: “A right-to-work law says that a worker cannot be required to join a labor union or pay dues in order to get or keep a job. Do you favor or oppose a right-to-work law for Indiana?”

“We’ve scientifically polled this issue statewide five times over the past six years with a fair and objective question and found overwhelming overall support for right-to-work, ranging from 65% to 77%,” Brinegar adds. “In the most recent poll, that support was strong no matter the person’s party identification.”

May 2011 Indiana statewide voter poll question on right-to-work:

  • Democrats: 48% favor, 42% oppose
  • Republicans: 78% favor, 15% oppose
  • Independents: 68% favor, 22% oppose

“Creating jobs and economic growth must be Indiana’s top priority,” Brinegar says.  “Passing a right-to-work law will clearly open the door to the many job-creating companies that won’t even look at Indiana today and provide individual workers with the freedom of choice to determine whether or not they wish to belong to a union.”

Our Statement on NLRB’s Push for Swifter Union Control Via Election Process

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just approved a push for swifter union control through speedier elections that could occur within two to three weeks after filing a petition. Before the rule goes into effect, it will be drafted into final language for a subsequent NLRB vote within the next three weeks.

Comments from Indiana Chamber of Commerce President Kevin Brinegar on this development:

"This is yet another attempt by organized labor to abandon the historical democratic process within labor-management relations and tip the scales in favor of employees voting for a union. Currently, the average time it takes to have an election is 38 days. By cutting that time in half, unions are boldly trying to rob employers of their time to fully discuss the impact of unionizing their workplace.

"It all comes down to fairness. Employees need to be able to fully hear both sides of the union organizing argument, and then let them make an informed decision. What the NLRB is attempting is basically an ambush and once again illustrates the Board’s increasing abuse of power."

There are other concerning changes covered in the new rule, says Brinegar, including no pre-election appeals to the Board and any post-election review of issues would be strictly discretionary.

Background:
The NLRB has less than three weeks to finalize its recommendations since the Board loses its quorum of three members later in December, including one key supporter of the approved election changes. The Board’s vote on Wednesday was 2-1. There are up to five members in total on the Board at any one time.

The National Labor Relations Act provides employees with the right to form or join a union in order to collectively bargain with their employer. To be recognized by an employer, a union must demonstrate it has the support of a majority of the employees. Any union election process is supervised by the NLRB.

Does Wisconsin Illustrate Fading Role of Unions?

Wisconsin public sector unions don’t like the rules that emerged from a legislative battle earlier this year. As a result, many failed to file for recertification. A professor and former legislator terms it: "Welcome to the future Wisconsin." Stateline reports:

Major unions in Wisconsin have opted to allow their official collective bargaining status to lapse rather than file for “recertification” under controversial new rules enacted earlier this year.

The decision raises serious questions about the relevance of state workers’ unions in Wisconsin politics and governance. Wisconsin has long been a union stronghold — and was in fact the first state to require collective bargaining for state workers. That changed when Republican Governor Scott Walker and the state legislature re-wrote bargaining rules, triggering protests that captured national attention for weeks.

The new law allows unions to retain official collective bargaining status if they undergo an annual vote of represented workers to determine that they still want the union to represent them in formal talks with the state. That’s a high hurdle. For one thing, holding an annual election is an expensive proposition for a union. And in order to prevail, unions must receive votes from a majority of represented workers, not just a majority of the votes cast.

The deadline to recertify passed last week. While some small unions filed paperwork, unions representing the majority of state workers allowed the deadline to pass without filing with the state as required by the new law.

“I think the passing of the deadline was a major moment and now we can say, ‘Welcome to the future Wisconsin,’” Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and former state legislator, told Reuters.

The decision not to subject themselves to the recertification process indicates that unions are betting that, under the new rules of the game, the costs of collective bargaining may outweigh the benefits. Those unions that do successfully pass the recertification test will only be able to negotiate over salary increases to keep pace with inflation — they can’t negotiate over not workplace conditions, benefits or more significant salary bumps, as they could before. At the same time, the resources available to state unions have diminished because unions are no longer allowed to take automatic deductions from represented workers’ paychecks. All contributions are voluntary.

The Associated Press reports that while union leaders have refused to say how many members are voluntarily continuing to pay dues, layoffs of union staff have already begun. The Wisconsin Education Association Council, the statewide teachers union, has laid off 42 people — 40 percent of its staff.

Column: Right-to-Work States Have Economic Advantage

Andrea Neal of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation penned the following column on right-to-work laws for the Times of Northwest Indiana. The Indiana Chamber has been an advocate for developing a right-to-work law in the state:

It doesn’t take an economist to spot the common thread in these recent economic development headlines:

• Chattanooga, Tenn., July 29: "Volkswagen hires 2,000th employee."
• Shreveport, La., July 28: "NJ-based bag manufacturer to build Louisiana plant."
• Decatur, Ala., July 21: "Polyplex to build $185 million plant."
• West Point, Ga., July 7: "Kia builds vehicle No. 300,000."

All four stories have Southern datelines. All come from states with right-to-work laws, which prohibit labor contracts that require employees to join a union or pay a union representation fee.

This is the issue that prompted the five-week House Democratic walkout during the 2011 Indiana General Assembly. The Democrats — a minority in both House and Senate — had no other leverage. So when a right-to-work bill came up unexpectedly in a session that was supposed to be about the budget, redistricting and education, they bolted. Republicans capitulated and took the legislation off the table.

In 2012, it will return with a vengeance, and this time Democrats can’t avoid it. Right-to-work has been promised a full public airing. The Interim Study Committee on Employment Issues, chaired by Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, is taking a first crack this summer and hopes to recommend a bill by November. Gov. Mitch Daniels, who didn’t support the bill last session, has hinted he might this time around.

The debate goes back to 1935 when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act protecting employees’ rights to form, join and be involved in unions. One section of the law permitted contracts that made union membership a condition of employment. Congress modified that language in 1947 when it said states could prohibit these. In response, 22 states passed right-to-work laws. Indiana is one of 28 that currently does not have such a law.

Predictably, at last week’s study committee hearing, business interests favored right-to-work while union leaders opposed it. The economists were divided. Richard Vedder, of Ohio University, summarized research showing that right-to-work states have higher rates of employment, productivity and personal income growth. Marty Wolfson, of the University of Notre Dame, testified that right-to-work laws result in lower wages and benefits.

Their conclusions are not mutually exclusive. If you grant Wolfson’s point, the policy question remains: Which is better? A state with higher wages for some but a weaker economy overall or one with lower wages for some and more vibrant growth, not to mention freedom of choice for the worker?

Companies are voting with their feet. To the extent that manufacturers are expanding in the United States — and few are — they are choosing the South and West where right-to-work is prevalent.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, in announcing the $185 million project by Polyplex, the world’s fourth-largest manufacturer of thin polyester film, was blunt: "Alabama is a right-to-work state, and we will continue to be one. That’s one of our advantages for companies who are looking to build on new sites."

Companies won’t readily admit this because what they say can and will be used against them. Currently pending at the National Labor Relations Board is a case against Boeing, which recently opened a second production facility in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane.

South Carolina has a right-to-work law. Boeing’s other production site is in Washington state, which does not. The board’s complaint alleges that Boeing chose South Carolina in retaliation for strikes by Washington workers in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Its proposed remedy would force Boeing to move its South Carolina operation to Washington. This would be an extraordinary use of federal power to promote the cause of organized labor at one company’s expense.

Right-to-work does not destroy unions. It gives workers the right to decide for themselves whether to join. "This greater accountability results in unions that are more responsive to their members and more reasonable in their wage and work rule demands," the Mackinac Center for Public Policy said.

It should come as no surprise to Indiana legislators that expanding industries favor that kind of relationship. The legislative choice is between protecting unions as we know them or protecting the long-term interests of Hoosier workers.

Brinegar: Time is Now for Right-to-Work

In light of this summer’s legislative Interim Study Committee meetings, Indiana Chamber President Kevin Brinegar explains why the Chamber is advocating for a right-to-work law. Brinegar notes that Indiana’s Secretary of Commerce and site selection agencies across the country assert 40% of companies won’t consider relocating to states without right-to-work laws.

Time to Abide by New Rules in Indiana

More than 200 new state laws went into effect today. Unless you like to throw caution to the wind – which is not known as a wise tactic in the face of law enforcement – it’s a good idea to take note of what’s now on your to-do and to-don’t lists. Below are a few examples.

For Companies:

Verifying immigration status of new hire
Virtually all employers will need to confirm through the federal E-Verify database that a new employee is here legally. The penalty for employers failing to comply is loss of tax benefits. The E-verify system itself is free, but in reality employers will have internal administrative costs for running each employee check.

Machinery and equipment deductions
Businesses can now seek greater personal property deduction (abatement) from their local governments. On the table are significant tax deductions on new machinery and equipment purchases.

Union secret ballot election
Aimed at eliminating possible coercion tactics, this law requires all elections regarding employee/union representation to be conducted via a secret ballot.

For Citizens:

Don’t text while driving
This seems like a no-brainer, but apparently nothing really is. Only those using a hands-free, voice-operated smartphone can continue “texting” while actually on the road.

Drug testing before state workforce training
Unemployed Hoosiers who want to take advantage of various training programs offered by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development must be prepared to take a drug test. If you pass, you can sign up for the WorkOne training.

School choice scholarships
Low- and middle-income families unhappy with their child’s education can now apply for scholarships to help pay the cost at a public or private school of their choice. Only students who have spent at least one year in a public elementary or high school are eligible, and the program is first come, first serve (with a limited number of scholarships available).

Common sense liquor store ID requirements
No longer should stores ask to see ID before selling liquor to people who clearly were around before advent of the television. Only those who appear to be under the age of 40 will be required to produce their identification. For me, that means I will now consider it a compliment if I’m carded.

Child support before gambling
If an individual strikes it big at a casino but is also ignoring court-ordered child support obligations, those casino winnings will be withheld and applied to the outstanding support payments. It’s called prioritization.

Looking for something else? All 2011 laws and their summaries can be found in a report prepared by the Indiana Senate Majority.

Indy News Anchor Files Complaint Against Union

WRTV-6 news anchor Trisha Shepherd is one of many American workers who believe she should actually receive the money she earns rather than a union she would prefer not to belong to. Most telling is her quote that she’s not trying to make a political statement, just trying to protect herself. While unions have every right to exist, how can forced membership be justified? The Indy Star reports:

A news program anchor for WRTV (Channel 6) has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the union representing workers at the Indianapolis television station.

Trisha Shepherd, who anchors the evening newscasts, claims in a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board that the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists is illegally trying to collect dues or fees from her.

Shepherd’s two-page complaint, filed this week with the NLRB office in Indianapolis, has echoes of the controversy over right-to-work legislation that failed to pass the Indiana General Assembly.

Unions consider such laws to be politically motivated attempts to weaken the labor movement by cutting their ability to charge fees even to nonmembers who receive the benefits of collective bargaining.

Shepherd said Thursday that her complaint to the NLRB isn’t intended as a test case on right-to-work issues.

She said the controversy in Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states did not motivate her complaint against AFTRA.

"This is not intended as a political statement," she said.

"I’m just like any other citizen trying to protect myself," Shepherd said.

The union has been trying to collect $1,032 as of April 18. It hired a Pennsylvania collection company to try to get her to pay, according to NLRB filings.