Posted on 09/09/2001 6:56:19 AM PDT by flim-flam
POTEAU -- The topic of conversation at the weekly Rotary Club luncheon is how Le Flore County and Oklahoma fall short.
But Gov. Frank Keating didn't come to talk about Cavanal Hill, a point of pride north of town that qualifies as the world's tallest hill because it is two feet short of being a mountain.
Instead, he's looking a few miles east to the Arkansas border and the Ozarks, where he says economic development is thriving at Oklahoma's expense. He says a lot of it is because of Oklahoma's failure to pass a right-to-work law as Arkansas and 20 other states have.
"We have great people and a great values system, but what's happening to us along the border is unacceptable, embarrassing and intolerable," Keating said.
Pick a border, any border, and Oklahoma doesn't fare well economically in comparison to out-of- state counties, Keating tells the audience, holding up a map that compares median income levels to illustrate his point that 28 of 30 border counties lag behind those across the border in per capita personal income.
With the Sept. 25 vote on State Question 695 getting closer, it's a message he drives home in every speech, just as the opposition keeps warning voters that Oklahomans will see a drop in wages if right to work passes.
Larry Mischel, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., says it's hard for him to see on first blush that creating a few more border manufacturing jobs is what Oklahoma needs.
"How can trying to steal some jobs from other states on their way to Mexico be the economic tool Oklahoma has been waiting for all these years?" said Mischel, whose research has been quoted often in anti-right-to-work campaign material. "I think it's mostly a political dispute."
Campaign heating up
Both sides agree that the campaign will get nastier and more expensive in the final weeks and that the vote will be close.
Keating has stumped for right to work in several cities and towns in less than four weeks, and like Tulsa, Ponca City, Enid, Oklahoma City, Durant, Lawton, Clinton, Stillwater, Norman and Ardmore before it, Poteau, a Democratic Party hotbed, is getting a first-hand look at a man on a mission.
"I have a passion to address policies that hurt people, and I feel strongly about this," Keating said.
"Too many times, the only new buildings I would see in towns were vo-tech centers and DHS (Department of Human Services) buildings," he said. "There's nothing wrong with providing those services, but I would ask: 'Where is the new private sector development.'"
To Keating, right to work is an issue of prosperity for workers, economic survival for the state and an issue of who will be motivated to vote Sept. 25.
"Government policies have a lot to do with why outside states are rich and we're challenged," he said.
Steve York, an Oklahoma City firefighter, said workers in Oklahoma don't have it as bad as the governor claims and fears workers will suffer under right to work.
"I don't buy into what the governor is selling us because firefighters' wages are partially based on wages of other labor in the state and if wages go down for carpenters and plumbers, that could affect our wages," he said.
Opponents of right to work say the average wage of an Oklahoma City blue-collar worker is $13.80, which is higher than the average wage in Dallas.
In a campaign where both sides have questioned each other's supporting data, Keating said two sets of statistics are important to remember:
Because of lackluster population gains, Oklahoma will become the only state west of the Mississippi River to lose a Congressional seat when Congress redistricts the House of Representatives next year.
And, per capita income in the state has slipped below 80 percent of the national average.
To Keating, it's obvious that Oklahoma needs more selling points if it is going to grow.
"We have to convince people it's a life and death issue for the whole state because I think we will go into a decline if we vote no," he said.
Passage of State Question 695 will have just the opposite effect, opponents say.
"While the motivation -- job creation -- is fine, this approach would, at best, have modest effects on the number of jobs created," David R. Howell, a New York University professor, said. "Equally important, though, is that nearly all the jobs created would require low skills and pay very poorly. Research over the last three decades has consistently shown that the demand for labor is not very responsive with respect to wages."
In right-to-work states, the average wage and household income are "several thousand dollars less than in states without right to work," the Vote No State Question 695 campaign claims.
Eighteen of the top 20 states in personal per capita income do not have right-to-work laws, while six of the bottom 10 states in income growth have right to work, according to U.S. Labor Department statistics.
W. Robert Reed, an OU economist whose research has been utilized by right-to-work proponents, said southern states that adopted right to work in the 1940's were poor at the time and that should be factored into any comparison of wages.
If right to work affected Oklahoma the way it has other right- to-work states, Reed said his research shows the impact on Oklahoma's average wages would result in a 10.7 percent increase.
Across the border
For at least a decade, Ron Russell, the president and chief executive of the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce and Association Industries, has been talking about how the lights are brighter on his side of the border.
"When an industrial prospect would visit Ft. Smith, we would take them up to the country club, point to the north-south line of lights and tell them where the lights went out is where right to work stopped," he said.
When it was put in place in 1947, right to work had a lot to do with getting the state moving and is still a factor today, Russell said.
"Arkansas has done very well over the years in terms of attracting jobs and industry, but business recruitment is becoming even more competitive than I've ever seen," he said.
"We live in an age of rapid change, and if you can't embrace change, you will quickly become a dinosaur in the business world."
Russell said the turning point came when the chambers of commerce in five towns -- Springdale, Rogers, Fayetteville, Bentonville and Siloam Springs -- consolidated their economic development efforts.
"Then, you've got the tremendous influence of corporate leaders -- J.B. Hunt, the Tyson family, the Waltons, the Georges and the Jones trucking family," Russell said. "They provided a lot of talent that was directed to community development."
The opening of a regional airport at Highfill, Ark., two years ago created the synergy for more growth, Russell said.
Arkansas' overall per capita personal income declined in 2000 to 75 percent of the national average, compared with 79.25 percent for Oklahoma.
Although corporate leaders have not publicly said they have avoided Oklahoma because it is not a right-to-work state, Keating claims that issue prevents the state from getting a chance to compete with Arkansas and Texas for new business.
"I don't want Oklahoma to be a colony-based economy that merely exports natural resources," he said in an interview after his Poteau speech. "But all the public policy people can do is fence the landscape, fertilize the soil and let the future take care of itself."
While in Poteau, Keating focused on how one manufacturer, Johnson Controls Inc., closed its 120-employee operation in Poteau, telling him that the state's right-to-work status was an impediment to business growth.
When challenged by Poteau Mayor Jeff Shockley that Johnson Controls' decision to shift production to Mexico wasn't related to right to work, Keating said:
"I'd rather have five Johnson Controls types of plants in Poteau than Arkansas, so if you lose one to Mexico you've got four left."
Shockley, who is opposed to 695, later said he believes Johnson Controls moved its plant after more than 35 years of operation in Poteau because the "cost of doing business" in Mexico was much cheaper.
"We thought we already had right to work here because at Johnson Controls we had union and non-union people working side by side," Shockley said.
While 40 percent of the county's work force commutes to Arkansas, Shockley said he thinks Interstate 40 is what led manufacturers to Ft. Smith, not right to work.
As for Poteau's future, Shockley said: "We got a nice small town feeling with growing amenities, and we will really take off when we get our four- lane highway opened."
What's it all about?
To Keating, Oklahoma's highway to prosperity should be paved with a right-to-work law because "our children won't have good jobs to keep them here or allow them to come back home."
Right to work supporters include a number of key Republicans and Democrats. OU president David Boren said, "Trying to fight for more and better jobs for Oklahoma without right to work is like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs."
With less than two years remaining as governor, Keating said his economic to-do list" is getting smaller but still includes passing right to work, reforming workers compensation, eliminating the state income tax and shifting to a consumption tax and improving education.
Grace Hall, communications director for Oklahomans for No on State Question 695, said voters should be asking themselves what the upcoming election is really about.
"The election isn't about unions because only 6.5 percent of the work force in Oklahoma are in unions. And it's not about Oklahoma workers," she said. "It's about something else. You have to look at who the proponents and fund-raisers of it are and why they are doing it."
Hall said it's not about losing jobs to other states, either.
"They can't even name a business that hasn't located in Oklahoma because it's not a right-to- work state," she said.
Hall said passage of a right-to- work law is a way of punishing unions, which would still be required by federal law to represent non-dues-paying workers in a union-organized workplace in grievance matters and other negotiations.
Hall, who came to Oklahoma from Los Angeles six weeks ago to help manage the campaign, called right to work Keating's pet issue.
"He's campaigning in a plane financed by state residents," she said.
Dan Mahoney, Keating's director of communications, said the governor did fly in the state plane to Poteau on Aug. 31, but he said that event was not a campaign event.
It was similar to hundreds of other civic club events Keating has attended, Mahoney said.
"The governor has been speaking at civic clubs for six years," Mahoney said. "There were no right-to-work banners there."
Mahoney said Keating is entitled to advocate a position, adding that the governor has been careful to separate right-to- work events from his official duties, using donated transportation when flying to right-to- work campaign events.
While both sides in the campaign are debating how much impact right to work will have on most residents, Keating said it -- much like the Capitol Dome project --is an important symbol of change in Oklahoma.
"With the dome and the museum, we have been putting in place important metaphors to celebrate our culture," he said. "I feel strongly about right to work because I'm a passionate believer in changing the state."
Steve York says Keating is merely advertising Oklahoma as a "cheap state with cheap labor" and will change it for the worse.
Hall said the election has significance nationally because it's the "first big thing out of the gate" for unions since George W. Bush became president.
"While this isn't about unions in Oklahoma, when it comes to workers, the union lifts all boats," she said.
That's not the message Keating delivered to Rotarians in Poteau.
"No union has ever brought a job to Oklahoma, but they've kept them out," he said. "All I want us to do is get on the list when business recruiters are looking around the country. If we can get on that list, I think Oklahomans can make the sale."
My guess is that everyone whose wages would drop (remember the state average) in a right to work state are not all that interested in free association...
Like the article says, 6 percent of the workforce is union...The other 94 percent is non union, but still, the average wage is far better than Arkansas...94 percent of the people benefit from NOT having right to work laws...
Although there may be more work in Ark., I'll bet there are far more folks from Ark., crossing the line looking for work in OK than there are the other way...
Here's a couple extra links supporting the economic benefits of right to work:
Regeards
I can name two companies that would move out of the state if their workforce ever unionized. Arkansas and Mexico would be their chosen destinations.
Unions are good for union workers only. Period.
Once upon a time men went on a strike because they were being cheated and abused. Now they strike on the principle that it is excellent policy always to be demanding something; it keeps capitalism where it belongs - on the ragged edge of things. No matter what they demand they never expect to give an equivalent; and a just cause isn't necessary. Thus the present-day agitator has only one perplexity - that of eluding the iron hand of the Department of Justice. – Drums of Jeopardy, Harold MacGrath, 1913
Economics of Unionism
The Teamsters' strike, and its pending settlement, against United Parcel Service (UPS) gives us a chance to think about unions and labor issues. In a free society, people have the right to form voluntary associations. Therefore, any impediment, including so-called right-to-work laws, to people joining and forming labor unions is offensive. On the other hand, when union membership or dues payment is made mandatory as a condition of employment, that is equally offensive. Union leaders argue that collective bargaining benefits all workers, even those who aren't members. They should be allowed to "free-ride", thus compulsory dues are justified. That's a little more complex argument, but the fact that one person benefits from the activities of another doesn't necessarily make the case for compulsory payments. For example, I catch my neighbor enjoying my beautiful rhododendrons, should she be forced to pay part of their costs rather than "free-riding"?
Union leaders argue that their struggle for higher wages is against the employer and their major weapon in that struggle is the strike. They're wrong on both counts. By itself, the strike is not much of a weapon. Instead, union power lies in its ability to prevent employers from hiring other workers in their places. They can achieve this either through labor laws or violence. Otherwise, a strike is little more than a mass resignation. That's why the 1981 air traffic controllers' union strike was a disaster; they could not prevent the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from hiring other workers. The real struggle of labor unions is against other workers. Their ability to demand wages that may exceed their productivity depends on their ability to prevent employers from hiring replacements.
Competition is always between either seller and seller or buyer and buyer - not buyer and seller. If Walmart wanted to rig the game in order to charge higher prices, it would try to get Kmart and Sears (other sellers) out of the market not you and me (buyers). Unions represent sellers, in this case sellers of labor services. They benefit from restricting entry by other sellers (workers) and having more buyers (employers). This aspect of the conflict between unions and other workers is seen by the fact that when there's a strike involving violence, it is workers who disagree with the union who are most likely to be assaulted, injured or killed by union members, not employers.
Higher wages are not caused by unionism. If unionization was the route to higher wages and living standards, poverty could be wiped out instantly in countries like Haiti, Zaire and Romania simply by unionization.
High wages are related to worker productivity. The challenge is to make people more productive. One way is through what economist call investment in human capital i.e., education and skills training. Another is through greater formation of physical capital - machinery, tools and equipment. When we see highway construction, around the world, workers using a lot of heavy equipment receive higher wages than those using picks and shovels. Heavy equipment operators are more productive because they're working with more capital. Therefore, rising wages are tied to increased capital formation. One way to increase capital formation is to change our tax policy that makes capital formation more costly - eliminate capital gains and corporate profit tax.
The bottom line protection for today's workers is rising worker productivity and many employers competing for their services. After all the bulk of our labor force is not unionized and for the most part doing quite well.
Walter E. Williams
August 18, 1997
But Gov. Frank Keating didn't come to talk about Cavanal Hill, a point of pride north of town that qualifies as the world's tallest hill because it is two feet short of being a mountain.
Just WHAT is this height restriction on Mountains???
100% wrong...
In the case of Oklahoma, 96% percent of the workforce benefits from the unions...One could ask, why is the non-union work force so large...And the answer is simple...Employers want to keep unions out so they treat and pay their employees well enough that the employees don't need a union...
I can understand your view if you are an employer...Higher wages and benefits mean less profits for employers...
Far too many white collar workers can't seem to figure out that their counter-parts in union shops make much more than they do...Maybe it's envy that gives them the anti-union attitude...
Many if not most unions shops are high on productivity...A couple of reasons for this...Worker training...Unions generally sponsor or advocate worker training and responsibility...Turnover...Low wage non-union shops have a far higher rate of turn-over because good workers generally head to better paying jobs...
But the funniest thing is that none of you guys complain about Doctors being organized...Of course we can't call them "unions" but they are just as organized...And how about "the Landlord's Association"...Another acceptable union??? What about the "Automobile Dealer's Association"??? Ever go from one city to another to get a real deal on an auto??? You can't. They are organized...But these are "acceptable" unions...Hou about gasoline??? Try to convince someone gas suppliers and retailers aren't unionized...
Sounds like your only beef is you don't like the "working class" making a decent wage...
Which one of those so-called 'unions' that you just named FORCE people to pay dues to be used in a political campaign for the candidate that they DON'T want to vote for? Doctors, automobile dealers, gas suppliers and retailers may be organized for advertising purposes and as a group to get better deals on merchandise, insurance, rent, etc. But they aren't unions stealing 'dues' from people who don't choose to join. An ASSOCIATION is just that. You choose to join the association or you don't have to join. It's YOUR choice. Not so with a union. You don't get to choose anything. They TAKE your dues without giving you a choice whether to join or not. They bully people to the point of beating them up. They harrass your family, friends and start fights between other workers who don't agree with them.
How many ASSOCIATIONS have BOSSES who make huge salaries for doing NOTHING? How many ASSOCIATIONS have lawyers who make huge salaries for doing NOTHING? If companies didn't have to deal with UNION BOSSES, UNION ATTORNEYS, UNION THUGS? Who do you think would benefit? What is a $.35 cent an hour raise for EVERYONE (including the workers who don't show up except when they would like) compared to the company deciding that one worker deserved a $1.00 an hour raise for their hard work while the others didn't? I'll take my responsibility for doing good work over that of the union boss deciding EVERYONE should get a raise regardless of the productivity of the GROUP. It comes down to CHOICE. Isn't that what we are told EVERYONE wants is CHOICE. Or does that only apply to abortions?
Maybe you are jus mis-imformed...In union shops as well as non union, there are minimum productivity requirments...People lose their jobs in union as well as non-union environments...The difference is, there is generally a system in place in a union shop where an employess is terminated for "just cause", not just because someone doesn't like your personality...But many non-unions shops have adapted the "just cause" policy for workers that give the same protection as union shops...
Oh really? Then please explain why there are teachers who can't read teaching? Why there are young teachers straight out of school, taught one year and decided to start a lawn service instead? Why someone who is never on time, 'sick' two days out of five gets the same pay that the person who is on time, never gets 'sick'(or works sick) and does the job of two? Yes, that does happen! Why that person has to contribute to a political candidate that they have NO intentions of voting for?
You still haven't answered the questions about ORGANIZATIONS compared to UNIONS.
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.