Democrat Introduces Legislation to End Right-to-Work States

Democrat Introduces Legislation to End Right-to-Work States

BigGovernment.com
Oct. 4, 2010

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 ), 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.

The perfidy of the Democrats is just disgusting. It's not bad enough that all those union states you see in blue have the highest unemployment rates in the country, no the damn Democrats want to inflict that pain on the whole freaking country. I am just getting sick and tired with these politicians thinking they know better that the individual states what it best for them. Add "card check" to this mess and we can kiss 5% unemployment rates goodbye forever, and welcome in the new chronic 10-15% unemployment rates or worse.

dblboggie wrote:The perfidy of the Democrats is just disgusting. It's not bad enough that all those union states you see in blue have the highest unemployment rates in the country, no the damn Democrats want to inflict that pain on the whole freaking country. I am just getting sick and tired with these politicians thinking they know better that the individual states what it best for them. Add "card check" to this mess and we can kiss 5% unemployment rates goodbye forever, and welcome in the new chronic 10-15% unemployment rates or worse.

Not only that, most of those "non-right to work states" are liberals states. No surprise there.

But yeah, i just can't get it into my head on how these people think that they can keep on with this bullshit of force. They have no idea on how bad they're going to get thumped this November. Then watch on how some silly legislation will try to be passed between then and January.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The perfidy of the Democrats is just disgusting. It's not bad enough that all those union states you see in blue have the highest unemployment rates in the country, no the damn Democrats want to inflict that pain on the whole freaking country. I am just getting sick and tired with these politicians thinking they know better that the individual states what it best for them. Add "card check" to this mess and we can kiss 5% unemployment rates goodbye forever, and welcome in the new chronic 10-15% unemployment rates or worse.

Not only that, most of those "non-right to work states" are liberals states. No surprise there.

But yeah, i just can't get it into my head on how these people think that they can keep on with this bullshit of force. They have no idea on how bad they're going to get thumped this November. Then watch on how some silly legislation will try to be passed between then and January.

That's exactly what I've warned of... the lame-duck session of congress... we are in grave peril until the new congress is seated. I sincerely hope that we gain sweeping majorities in both houses... because if we don't we have no hope of reversing the damage I predict will be inflicted on us by the lame-duck session.

The only stop-gap in the lame-duck is in the Senate. The House needs only a straight majority to pass laws (as you know). But then we have the northeast RINO's to help out the other side.

Also, one can't discount those who will have lost their re-election bid by then and will vote the other way just so they can give the rest of the country one of these on their way out.

TexasBlue wrote:The only stop-gap in the lame-duck is in the Senate. The House needs only a straight majority to pass laws (as you know). But then we have the northeast RINO's to help out the other side.

Also, one can't discount those who will have lost their re-election bid by then and will vote the other way just so they can give the rest of the country one of these on their way out.

Just so... and these RINO's are the very reason the party has fallen into such disrepute. And as you note, those RINO's who have lost their primaries are just as likely to screw us as anything else.

Cross your fingers my friend, November will tell the tale... we literally live or die as a constitutional republic based on the outcome in my humble opinion.

If what has transpired in the last 2 years is not enough to motivate the people to make a massive change in government, then nothing less than an outright move to seize power ala' Chavez will suffice to wake the American people up to the designs the Democrats have on our republic. And that will likely be too late.

IMO, today's Dems are not even what they were in 1960. In fact, this bunch in power makes Bill Clinton look like a conservative in many regards. Even Bill said that he moved so far to the left in his 1st two years that he didn't recognize himself. It's why he lost congress to the Newt GOP.

And yeah, the so-called moderates are the scourge of the GOP, imo. It's one thing to be a moderate on abortion or religion. But to be a so-called moderate on more gov't control is a lie to themselves.

That is such BS... The reason unemployment in a lot of the blue states is high is because most of those are labor states - especially those in the Great Lakes and northeast. Those states used to actually make things using resources that came from other states. That's how cars were made. Michigan built them using resources from Pennsylvania. But America doesn't make American cars anymore, do we? No, Japan and China make American cars - using Japanese and Chinese workers. And when you're car breaks, you call the help desk - in New Delhi. It's called outsourcing. That's why unemployment is higher.

And just to be fair to the south, just outside of Birmingham, Alabama there is a big car factory where they make cars - German cars, using German workers on American soil.

i_luv_miley wrote:

And just to be fair to the south, just outside of Birmingham, Alabama there is a big car factory where they make cars - German cars, using German workers on American soil.

Are you talking about the Mercedes factory in Tuscaloosa? Because they don't use German workers, there are only some Germans in the management & upper management positions.

BubbleBliss wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

And just to be fair to the south, just outside of Birmingham, Alabama there is a big car factory where they make cars - German cars, using German workers on American soil.

Are you talking about the Mercedes factory in Tuscaloosa? Because they don't use German workers, there are only some Germans in the management & upper management positions.

Yeah, that's the one.

Then why are all the signs in German?

What signs? My dad works for the company that supplies that Mercedes factory with sunroofs and he's the quality manager for all Mercedes products, he never once mentioned that it's all German workers. Even though, sometimes German workers are transferred to other factories, but only a small amount, to do some training, repairs, refurbishing, or other such things.

i_luv_miley wrote:That is such BS... The reason unemployment in a lot of the blue states is high is because most of those are labor states - especially those in the Great Lakes and northeast. Those states used to actually make things using resources that came from other states. That's how cars were made. Michigan built them using resources from Pennsylvania. But America doesn't make American cars anymore, do we? No, Japan and China make American cars - using Japanese and Chinese workers. And when you're car breaks, you call the help desk - in New Delhi. It's called outsourcing. That's why unemployment is higher.

Aww, c'mon. We make cars/trucks here and you know it. They've had their fair share of problems in the meantime. But you can't contradict the fact that most of those states in that image (right-to-work) are union states and also heavy Democrat voting states. Many of our problems aren't just the things you described. It's a mish-mash of them all. Outsourcing is something i sympathize with. But your buddy Clinton signed it into law via NAFTA. Bush I got that ball rolling.

i_luv_miley wrote:And just to be fair to the south, just outside of Birmingham, Alabama there is a big car factory where they make cars - German cars, using German workers on American soil.

Non-union i bet, ain't they?

TexasBlue wrote:Aww, c'mon. We make cars/trucks here and you know it. They've had their fair share of problems in the meantime. But you can't contradict the fact that most of those states in that image (right-to-work) are union states and also heavy Democrat voting states. Many of our problems aren't just the things you described. It's a mish-mash of them all. Outsourcing is something i sympathize with. But your buddy Clinton signed it into law via NAFTA. Bush I got that ball rolling.

They aren't made like they once were. Just look at Detroit.

Of course the blue states are labor states. Labor is what made them blue. But through out-sourcing a lot of the jobs have been moved elsewhere. But make no mistake, those states will remain blue for some time to come - and perhaps even more so. They know where their jobs went - and they know why. And yeah, Clinton is partlly to blame via NAFTA. But Bush made out-sourcing an American business standard.

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Aww, c'mon. We make cars/trucks here and you know it. They've had their fair share of problems in the meantime. But you can't contradict the fact that most of those states in that image (right-to-work) are union states and also heavy Democrat voting states. Many of our problems aren't just the things you described. It's a mish-mash of them all. Outsourcing is something i sympathize with. But your buddy Clinton signed it into law via NAFTA. Bush I got that ball rolling.

They aren't made like they once were. Just look at Detroit.

Of course the blue states are labor states. Labor is what made them blue. But through out-sourcing a lot of the jobs have been moved elsewhere. But make no mistake, those states will remain blue for some time to come - and perhaps even more so. They know where their jobs went - and they know why. And yeah, Clinton is partlly to blame via NAFTA. But Bush made out-sourcing an American business standard.

This line is nonsense. I'll give you a great example, the city nearest to me had a company that was founded in that city, and had been there for over 120 years... I live in a blue union state - no right to work... and that company finally got disgusted with the hostile business atmosphere here and picked up and moved to... wait for it... A RIGHT TO WORK STATE... Georgia! Several thousand jobs just vanished like that overnight because my state apparently does not believe its citizens should be free to set their own conditions for gaining employment and that some union thug boss knows best! It makes me want to puke!

Union states are anathema to jobs and to a general freedom of the people to work. I think it is disgusting that a state would make it possible for union membership to be REQUIRED in order to work for a living. It is a complete anachronism in the 21st century and such laws should be stricken from the books. Unions are nothing more than a money funnels to the Democrats and have no other discernible value to society.

I wish i coulda put it that way.

Minnesota is a right to work state. Wisconsin next door is. Polaris (in Wisconsin) is moving it's plant to Mexico in the next 2 years. 500 jobs down the drain.

When unions make it hard for a company, they'll go to where they can make a profit. I don't like it when they leave the country one single bit.... but there's no law to stop them.

TexasBlue wrote:I wish i coulda put it that way.

Minnesota is a right to work state. Wisconsin next door is. Polaris (in Wisconsin) is moving it's plant to Mexico in the next 2 years. 500 jobs down the drain.

When unions make it hard for a company, they'll go to where they can make a profit. I don't like it when they leave the country one single bit.... but there's no law to stop them.

We have 5 union states on our borders here in Ohio... we are surrounded by them...

And I hate when they have to leave the country too... it's a crying shame that our federal regulations and taxes have made this country so hostile to the businesses. But it would be irresponsible to their shareholders and customers if they didn't do what was needed to keep the company in business and profitable enough to justify their shareholders continued confidence that they've made a wise investment. And I will bet you that the move pains the senior executives as much as anyone else. It is a completely false (media/popular culture generated) picture of these executives as heartless, evil, greedy bastards who could care less for their employees. I tire of this image being propagated because they are put between a rock and a hard place by our imperial federal and state governments and are forced to make undesirable, but entirely necessary, decision such as this. You and I BOTH know they would much rather be able to operate in this country.

It's not much different than an individual who makes decent money but lives in a high tax state. After awhile, they tire of the bull and uproot themselves and move to a friendlier environment. It's why Texas is overflowing with business relocation to there. It's why many have pulled up and left California (business and families) and moved to Nevada. Even Ahnold was disturbed by the exodus of companies, individuals and families leaving for Nevada.

TexasBlue wrote:It's not much different than an individual who makes decent money but lives in a high tax state. After awhile, they tire of the bull and uproot themselves and move to a friendlier environment. It's why Texas is overflowing with business relocation to there. It's why many have pulled up and left California (business and families) and moved to Nevada. Even Ahnold was disturbed by the exodus of companies, individuals and families leaving for Nevada.

Believe me, I know about this. I was one of those fleeing from California, so I have first hand experience with this phenomena.

That black friend of mine in Texas has his own trucking company in California. He was born and raised there. The "invasion" out there ruined his business. He sold all his trucks and moved to Texas. He says he'll never go back there. He also spoke of how expensive it is there. He said that it's so bad that if you're anything but wealthy, you'll have a hard time out there.

TexasBlue wrote:That black friend of mine in Texas has his own trucking company in California. He was born and raised there. The "invasion" out there ruined his business. He sold all his trucks and moved to Texas. He says he'll never go back there. He also spoke of how expensive it is there. He said that it's so bad that if you're anything but wealthy, you'll have a hard time out there.

Your friend was right. I was paying $2500/mo for a 1200 sq ft condo. The only thing cheaper in California than here in Ohio was booze. And that's because in Ohio, liquor sales are controlled by the state. Anything run by government ALWAYS runs up prices.

Anyway, I finally had to leave the state, client's were drying up and you really do have to be making a ton of dough to afford living there.

My friend's dad finally moved to Texas (he was in his late 70s then) and his house sold for $101,000 in LA. That same house would go for around $45,000 in Ft. Worth is what my friend told me.

TexasBlue wrote:My friend's dad finally moved to Texas (he was in his late 70s then) and his house sold for $101,000 in LA. That same house would go for around $45,000 in Ft. Worth is what my friend told me.

he had a house that went for only $101,000?!?!? When was this... 1980? Even the crappiest house in the lousiest neighborhood would go for twice that when I left there. Hell, that tiny condo I rented went for almost $700,000.

Naw, this was in 1999.... in south-central.

TexasBlue wrote:Naw, this was in 1999.... in south-central.

Ah... South Central... well that's an entirely different animal. No one in their right mind would buy a house there. No wonder it only went for only a little over double his original purchase price. But then this just underscores how insane things are in LA. Even a house in the most crime-ridden and violent neighborhoods in LA are going for more than double there original purchase prices. I mean, we're talking about the home of the drive-by-shooting.

lol

Yeah, Bernie said it was a total pit down there. He grew up there and living in those conditions made him a better person because he refused to live the lifestyle that most do down there. He said his parents raised him different than most did back then (1960's).