Posted on 10/04/2010 4:37:32 PM PDT by CharlesMartelsGhost
Back in June, we reported that California Congressman Brad Sherman (D) was circulating a letter to his fellow Democrats to introduce legislation to repeal “Right-to-Work” laws in 22 states. Now, with less than a month before the mid-term elections and five weeks before a lame-duck session in Congress, Sherman has introduced legislation to eliminate state Right to Work laws all across America.
Currently, there are 22 states in the U.S. that have laws where workers who are employed at companies that are unionized have a choice whether or not to join or pay the union. These states are known as Right-to-Work states.
On the other hand, in the 28 Non-Right-to-Work states (also called forced-dues states), it is legal for a union to negotiate a “union (income) security clause” that requires all workers covered by the union to pay the union does or ‘agency fees’ as a condition of employment. If the workers refuse to pay the union, under a “union (income) security clause,” the union can have them fired from their jobs.
As background, in 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act with the Taft-Hartley Amendments which, among other things, gave states the right to establish “Right-to-Work” laws. Until the Taft-Hartley Amendments, from 1935 to 1947, private-sector workers in all 50 could be required to pay dues to a union or, if not, be fired from their jobs. The ability of states to have Right-to-Work laws is contained in a single paragraph within the National Labor Relations Act (Section 14 [b]), which states:
(b) [Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law] Nothing in this Act [subchapter] shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.
As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.
Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.
From Congressman Sherman’s website [emphasis added]:
Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states.
[snip]
“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”
“With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”
While Brad Sherman’s statement about workers in Right-to-Work states not having the right to organize is patently false (the National Labor Relations Act does not discriminate on workers’ rights to organize in a Right to Work state), he is accurate that his state of California has been losing jobs. However, there are a multitude of factors that have contributed to California’s demise—many of which were, ironically, caused by the unions that Sherman has so endeared himself.
Although Congressman Sherman introduced this legislation back in 2008, it had little chance of succeeding. However, with the mid-term elections and a lame-duck Congress following, the chances that Democrats (who are taking hundreds of millions from unions), it is possible the chances that Democrats could vote to end Right-to-Work states.
As a result, now is as good a time as any to get Democrats (in both Right-to-Work states and forced-union states) to state their positions on whether they support an end to workers’ right to work.
__________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Look at the map. Then think about where Toyota puts its car plants, and in fact, where many manufacturers prefer to locate.
This law will chase ‘em away from all 50 states.
Go on...MAKE our day!!!!!!!!!!!
How were these “red doper diaper baby” (former?) hippies able to get into government where their confused “power to the people” has become an even more confused drug-induced nightmare of “power to the government”?
Remember to confine him to the House basement the day we move in.
I was honestly surprised to discover that Indiana and Kentucky aren’t Right-to-Work states.
Guess you really do learn something new every day...
The repeal of Section 14-B of the Taft-Hartley Act was in the Democratic platforms of 1960 and 1964. In 1966, Lyndon Johnson tried to get a repeal of 14b through Congress, but a combination of Republicans and Southern Democrats filibustered it to death.
People like Trumka are too fundamentally stupid to comprehend the relationships here. Frankly, nobody likes him and given the opportunity he'd be riding a scow back to Mombasa.
Judging by the map shown, the Right-to-Work states are the Free states, and the others are dominated by the socialist, big-government advocates. Interestingly, there is almost a clear distinction between the states of the Old Confederacy and the Federal states. I am, though, very surprised about Alaska; I did not think it would have passed legisation placing its workers under the thumb of union thuggery.
This is something I am woefully ignorant about. I was under the impression that some states were “right to work” and others were “will to work,” or some silly name like that.
The difference, as it was explained to me, is that right to work states have a much harder time firing employees for whatever reason, while “will to work” states allow for termination of employees at the whim of the employer without discussion or... whatever.
This makes me feel a strong urge to deeply research the matter, as I have a feeling the information I was provided was false... for a reason.
Thanks for sharing this. Hopefully it will reach others who were as ill informed as I was.
Indiana was a right-to-work state until the 1964 Johnson landslide put the legislature in the hands of the Democrats. They first thing they did in 1965 was repeal the right-to-work law.
As a result of this one section being inserted into the 1947 amendments, states (through their legislatures) could determine whether or not to be a Right-to-Work state, or a forced-dues state.
Therefore, the removal of this one section would make all 50 states forced-dues states, giving unions the ability to have workers fired for not paying union dues or fees.
More important,
WHAT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE INTRASTATE LABOR RELATIONS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?
People, it is time that we wake up and declare that the emperor (or in this case Congress) has no clothes!
I believe the largest group of socialists and communists are in the Unions.
Why is the idea of fair share never mentioned when talking about the nearly 50%, 100% of Obama supporters, who pay exactly 0% in federal taxes?
Unions finance Obama. Obama hates America and Americans. Unions hate America.
This ain’t gonna pass. Right to work state AGs will sue and tie it up in the courts. Sherman is simply blowing smoke out of his behind to please his union masters.
Freedom to democrats is just a word. All states should have rigth to work—no one should be forced to join something/anything, anywhere to hold a job.
Legislation to outlaw closed shops makes more sense and is more Constitutional.
True and:
Kia-New plant in Alabama
BMW-Alabama
Michelin tires- South Carolina
Mercedes/Benz-South Carolina
Toyota-Texas
Boeing- closed line in Wash. bought plant in South Carolina and converting it for Dreamliner production.
One of the Big three is also putting a facility in Brownsville, Tx. (?)
Before it ceased to exist Hughes Aicraft saw the California union nightmare. They moved a military mfg. facility from Long Beach, Ca. to Mississippi. Overhead costs were over 25% in Long Beach, under 8% in Mississippi on a multi-year half a billion dollar military contract.
Good list, CharlesMartelsGhost. Except that the Kia plant is in Georgia (albeit only a few miles from the Alabama line). The same company does have a Hyundai plant in Alabama, though.
Here is all I can find about Brad Sherman and this on House.gov (there is some weirdness about the site with encyption)—
Congressman Sherman Urges Elimination of Unfair Labor Laws
October 1, 2010 3:17 PM
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Brad Sherman announced the introduction of dramatic legislation that would eliminate so-called “right-to-work” laws, which was applauded by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Sherman has a strong record of supporting working men and women and earned a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Right-to-work laws require unions to represent non dues-paying employees, thereby undermining the basic premise and promise of union membership and creating free riders – people who are exempt from paying their fair share. Right-to-work laws create different standards for union membership in different states. This results not only in confusion over the regulation of union membership, but also places a higher cost on worker representation in labor rights states. Right-to-work laws have come to be known as right-to-work-for-less laws, because employees in states with these laws average about $5,333 a year less than workers in labor rights states.
Even a conservative American Enterprise Institute scholar argues that right-to-work laws would violate international labor standards that have been accepted by most of the world for decades. Similarly, in testimony at Congressman Sherman’s March 10, 2010 hearing entitled “International Worker Rights, U.S. Foreign Policy and the International Economy”, the U.S. Department of State expressed concerns about efforts to undermine the right to organize throughout the world.
“I do not believe that there should be a right to be treated unfairly or to endure unnecessary restrictions. Right-to-work laws strip unions of their legitimate ability to collect dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues to provide benefits to free riders who are exempt from paying their fair share,” said Congressman Brad Sherman. “These laws are harmful to states like California, which allows labor unions to organize, because now we have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”
“With the introduction of legislation banning so-called right-to-work, Congressman Sherman has once again demonstrated his strong commitment to working families,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. “Right-to-work laws undermine the economy and weaken workers’ ability to bargain for better working conditions, which translates into lower pay and fewer benefits for everyone.”
In 1947, Section 14(b) of the Taft Hartley Act stripped the Federal government of its role in protecting the American workers’ right to freedom of association by allowing states to pass legislation that eliminates the ability of unions to collect dues from their members. The result is a confusing web of labor laws that encourages a race to the bottom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.