Federally-sanctioned forced union dues have predictable economic consequences.
Among them are Big Labor’s use of rigid work rules and cultivation of the “hate the boss” mentality to cement its power over employees.

Right to Work laws, now on the books in 22 states, protect the freedom of both private- and public-sector employees to keep and hold a job without forking over dues or fees to a union that is recognized as their “exclusive” (actually, monopoly) bargaining agent.

Unless they are protected by a state Right to Work law, independent-minded employees have no power to fight back against union bosses by withholding their financial support. And when employees have no personal freedom of choice, union bosses have little incentive to tone down their class warfare. Employees are consequently far less likely to reach their full productive potential and reap the accompanying benefits.

That’s a key reason why a wide array of demographic and economic indicators, including young- adult migration, show that forced union dues inhibit growth.

To read the rest of this document, click on the attachment link below.

For years, scientific opinion polls have shown that Americans overwhelmingly oppose federal labor laws that empower union officials to represent all employees in a company unit and deny union nonmembers the right to bargain for themselves. But Organized Labor’s top priority in the 2009-2010 Congress, the inaptly named “Employee Free Choice” Act, would rewrite federal labor law to make it even easier for union officials to secure monopoly-bargaining privileges over employees.

Well aware that the American people oppose monopoly unionism, union officials are citing as the key reason for passing it its alleged value as an economic stimulant as the nation seeks to pull itself out of a recession. However, even a cursory look at the contrasting economic track records of states in which a relatively high share of employees are under union monopoly bargaining and states in which monopoly bargaining is relatively rare shows this case is phony.

The record shows that the prevalence of union monopoly bargaining is correlated with lower real incomes, higher living costs, slower growth in jobs and job benefits, and higher unemployment. The evidence is overwhelming that enactment of federal legislation that is designed to put millions of additional workers under union monopoly-bargaining control would be economically harmful, not beneficial.

If Congress really wants to help the U.S. economy recover and restore opportunities for employees and businesses, it should instead revise federal labor law to ensure that it respects the ability of each individual employee to choose whether or not to be represented by and furnish financial support for a labor union.

To read the full text, click on the attachment link below.

And 1.3 Million Are Forced to Pay Union Dues, as Well as Accept Union Monopoly Bargaining

Education observers of all political stripes recognize that officials of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association and the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers teacher unions, as well as officials of state and local NEA and AFT affiliates, wield enormous clout over how America’s schools are run.

In a paper distributed last year, for example, Dr. Terry M. Moe, a political science professor at Stanford University and a prominent scholar in the field of education policy, concluded, citing his latest and previous research, that NEA and AFT union officers “use their power to shape the structure and ultimately the performance of government [schools].”

Click on the attachment link below to continue reading…

‘Public-Safety’ Act Would Turn Federalism Upside Down

Capital Research Center - Labor Watch
By Stan Greer

While the press has reported extensively on labor union efforts to accelerate private-sector union organizing by having Congress pass “card check” legislation, it has paid little attention to related efforts in Congress to mandate unionization in state and local government agencies. The union-supported “Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act” deserves increased public scrutiny.

Union Bosses and Other Compulsory-Unionism Apologists Aren’t ‘Entitled to Their Own Facts’

Now that it appears likely Coloradans will vote this November 4 on a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the firing of employees for refusal to join or pay dues or fees to an unwanted union, union officials and other compulsory-unionism apologists have launched a $25-35 million-dollar campaign (according to their own, undoubtedly low-ball estimate) of lies and distortions to ensure the amendment doesn’t pass.

Residents of Every Midwestern Right to Work State Are Better off Than Michiganians

Just a few years ago, Colorado State University business professor Raymond Hogler, one of the most prominent academic opponents of state Right to Work laws in the U.S., acknowledged (in a paper coauthored with economist Robert LaJeunesse): “A number of studies present statistical data substantiating the point that right to work states create and retain more manufacturing jobs.”

The Hogler-LaJeunesse concession regarding factory jobs also applies to private-sector jobs in general. Between 2002 and 2007, for example, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by a net 9.6%. That’s nearly triple the relatively small increase in private-sector jobs experienced by non-Right to Work states over this period.

Non-Right to Work Michigan, where Big Labor wields “exclusive” (monopoly) power to bargain with employers over the wages, benefits, and work rules of a higher share of private-sector employees than in all but one other state in the continental U.S., has an especially dismal employment picture. Along with forced-dues Ohio, which suffered a 0.4% private-sector job decline from 2002-2007, Michigan is one of just two states with negative job growth over the five year period. And Michigan’s decline of 5.2% is far worse than Ohio’s.

To continue reading the rest of the article, click on the attachment below.

Study Reveals Right to Work States’ Lead in Job Growth Consistent Over Time

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research today released its annual study comparing private-sector job growth in Right to Work states with private-sector job growth in states that do not protect employees from federal policies authorizing the termination of workers for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

The study reveals that not only is private-sector job growth faster in Right to Work states, but also that Right to work States’ lead in job growth is consistent over time.

See study attachment.

For further information, contact the Institute’s Senior Research Associate Stan Greer, 703-321-9606, or stg@nrtw.org.

With Repeal of Forced Dues in 2000, Annual GDP Could Have Been $436 Billion Higher by 2006

No one can state with certainty the price tag of the federal labor-law provisions that authorize the firing of roughly 7.3 million Americans employees should they refuse to pay union dues or fees as a job condition.

However, data issued last fall by the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indicate that, had Congress abolished federally-imposed union dues at the turn of the millennium, by 2006 the annual national economic output would have increased by an additional $436 billion in real 2000 dollars.

BEA data show that between 2000 and 2006 the combined real output of states with Right to Work laws barring all forced union dues and fees grew by 3.13% a year. That’s nearly half again as fast as the combined 2.11% real annual output growth of states that do not protect employees from federally-imposed forced union dues. (Oklahoma, which adopted its Right to Work law in September 2001, is excluded from this analysis. See Table I for more information.)

To put it another way, had the entire country grown as fast as the Right to Work states did over just this six-year period, by 2006 our national gross domestic product (GDP) would have been $11.727 trillion in chained 2000 dollars, $436 billion more than the actual figure of $11.291 trillion.

For years, scientific opinion polls have shown that Americans overwhelmingly oppose federal labor laws that empower union officials to represent all employees in a company unit and deny union nonmembers the right to bargain for themselves. But Organized Labor’s top priority in the 2007-2008 Congress, the inaptly named “Employee Free Choice Act,” would rewrite federal labor law to make it even easier for union officials to secure monopoly-bargaining privileges over employees.

Well aware that the American people oppose monopoly unionism, union officials are citing their legislation’s allegedly beneficial economic effects as the key reason for passing it. However, even a cursory look at the contrasting economic track records of states in which a relatively high share of employees are under union monopoly bargaining and states in which monopoly bargaining is relatively rare shows this case is phony.

The record shows that the prevalence of union monopoly bargaining is correlated with lower real incomes, higher living costs, slower growth in jobs and job benefits, and higher unemployment. The evidence is overwhelming that enactment of federal legislation that is designed to put millions of additional workers under union monopoly-bargaining control would be economically harmful, not beneficial.

If Congress really wants to bolster the U.S. economy and help employees and businesses, it should instead revise federal labor law to ensure that it respects the ability of each individual employee to choose whether or not to be represented by and furnish financial support for a labor union.