IBJNews

Right-to-work backers target three more states

Associated Press
December 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Buoyed by recent successes in the Midwest, conservatives and business groups are targeting at least three additional states for new efforts that could weaken labor unions by ending their ability to collect mandatory bargaining fees.

The latest efforts are focused on Missouri, Ohio and Oregon and — in a new twist — could put the issue before voters in 2014 instead of relying on potentially reluctant governors to enact laws passed by state legislators.

The strategy of appealing to voters could avoid a redo of the massive union-led protests that clogged some Midwestern capitols, including Indiana's, where Republicans recently enacted other anti-labor proposals. It also could result in a multimillion-dollar advertising battle between businesses and labor unions waged on several fronts at the same time.

"There's national money to be had, and there are large donors in the state that definitely want to move forward," said Jill Gibson Odell, a Portland, Ore., attorney who is sponsoring an initiative to restrict union fees for public employees in her state.

With the addition of Indiana and Michigan in 2012, there now are 24 states with right-to-work laws that prohibit making union fees a condition of employment. If the newest efforts succeed, unions in a little more than half of the states could have fewer resources to resist pension cuts, health care cost increases or other management initiatives they don't like.

Organizers of the right-to-work movement have seized upon recent economic struggles to suggest that states could gain jobs by making their labor policies more favorable toward business.

A report by the Congressional Research Service last year noted that right-to-work states had stronger employment during the past decade but lower average wages. The report stopped short of attributing that to right-to-work policies, however.

Supporters of such laws contend employees shouldn't be forced to pay fees to a union to get or keep a job. But unions contend the fees are fair because federal law requires them to represent all employees in a bargaining unit regardless of whether they join the union.

Most state right-to-work laws were enacted in the 1940s and 1950s. But businesses and conservative lawmakers, working through groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, have mounted a new push as union membership has dwindled and the competition for jobs has intensified among states.

Indiana in 2012 became the first state in more than a decade to enact a right-to-work law. The movement's biggest victory came later that year, when Republicans in the traditional union stronghold of Michigan followed suit even though thousands of union protesters thronged the Capitol.

"What we're seeing is a lot of states are looking and saying, 'Hey, if Michigan can do it, why can't we?" said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank based in Midland, Mich.

Vernuccio has traveled to Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington state and elsewhere encouraging conservatives to press the issue.

At a conference in Chicago last August that brought together hundreds of Republican officials and business leaders, Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder publicly predicted that his state's lawmakers would place right to work on the November 2014 ballot.

"We need to ignite a series of prairie fires in other states. It helps us pass it in Missouri if Wisconsin kicks over the bee hive," Kinder told the audience.

There's no indication that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker plans to pursue right to work as a follow-up to his successful 2011 push to limit collective bargaining rights for public workers, which sparked noisy around-the-clock protests at the Capitol. But others are embracing Kinder's strategy.

"If a labor-related issue was on the ballot in multiple states at the same time, labor would have to diffuse their resources," said Chris Littleton, a consultant and former tea party leader who is backing the right-to-work initiative in Ohio.

Unions have been coordinating their efforts to fight the proposals. Officials from the Missouri AFL-CIO met recently with union leaders in Ohio. Some union leaders also have looked to Colorado, where a right-to-work measure was defeated by voters in 2008.

"We'll launch a very robust and aggressive campaign" against it, said Scott Moore, a spokesman for Keep Oregon Working, a coalition of groups opposing the Oregon initiative.

Right-to-work supporters in Ohio have begun collecting signatures for a ballot proposal. In Missouri, Republican House Speaker Tim Jones has declared right-to-work a priority for the session that starts Jan. 8. Unions are hoping to quietly derail the measure in the Senate.

"Do we want to storm the Capitol and create a nuclear war if we don't have to? I would say, 'no.' But if that's what it takes, we certainly have the capabilities to do that," said Mike Louis, secretary-treasurer of the Missouri AFL-CIO.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Just keep thinking that way
    You just keep thinking that way..Keep thinking the right to work law is great for America..When you are working for poverty wages and over 8 hrs and week-ends for straight time you just remember this comment you made way back when and then you will wish like hell you had the option of joining when these working conditions become a reality. When you vote keep on voting for the guy that is going to fight for the right to work instead of the guy that will support union bargaining rights. When we have a national right to work law and we no longer live in a Democracy keeps voting for the guy that that took it all away. So while you think Unions are ridiculous just think that for the non union worker with those low wages and no benefits how great it will be when all states have the right-to-work law on their books
  • Parasites
    How is accepting union representation without paying for it any different than being a welfare recipient?
  • Good!
    It's nice to see that you don't have to be coerced into joining a union if you don't want to. It's called freedom of choice, something 'solidarity' doesn't consider. Of course, under right-to-work, you're free to join a union too. That's called reciprocity. Unions seem to want it to be their way only; what I don't like about unions. They also seem to think that all jobs are there jobs. That's called collusion. In other words, you can't work unless your work with us. That's called ridiculous. I'm glad to see other states coming around. I never did see the logic in bankrupting the company to keep a higher wage; it makes more sense to have 90% of something than 100% of nothing.
    • Solidarity for the 2000s
      It would be nice if the middle and lower classes would realize that they have a shared plight instead of allowing the rich, through the "right to work" movement, to successfully divide and pit them against one another.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

      2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

      3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

      4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

      5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.

      ADVERTISEMENT