« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Union Agenda Part One: So, you think your Right-To-Work state is safe from unions?

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 13th, 2013 at 10:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is the first of several posts about the union agenda to end the Senate filibuster….

Ending the Senate filibuster? Not so fast…

There is, and has been since 2010, a concerted effort by union bosses to get their union-bought cronies in the U.S. Senate to end the filibuster. Why?

The obvious answer is: So, unions can enact legislation that they want. However, let’s break that down to more specifics, shall we?

Teamsters union boss James P. Hoffa is the most blunt in decrying the use of the filibuster being used by unions to effectively end secret-ballot elections.

The Employee Free Choice Act would be the law of the land today if it weren’t for the modern filibuster.

The Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA, would have made it easier to organize a union. In 2008, it easily passed the House of Representatives. A solid majority of U.S. senators supported the bill. But they never got a chance to vote on it, and EFCA died.

While effectively ending secret-ballots in union certifications is one of the major reasons union bosses like Hoffa have spent billions on Barack Obama and Democrats in the last five years, there is more to ending Republicans’ ability block legislation than card-check that is on the union agenda.

Your Right-To-Work state is not as safe as you think.

At the end of last year, Michigan’s GOP-led legislature and governor enacted Right-to-Work laws for both public and private-sector workplaces, making the home of the once-mighty United Auto Workers the 24th state that forbids unions from getting workers fired for refusing to pay union dues or fees.

While it happened in less than a week’s time, once again, America was treated to the spectacle of union protesters laying violent siege to yet another state capitol–all over the issue of money going to union bosses coffers.

Despite union rhetoric to the contrary, state Right-To-Work laws do not abridge unions’ ability to collectively bargain.

Rather, Right-to-Work laws merely forbid unions from negotiating “union (income) security” clauses into contracts that enable unions to have workers fired for failing to pay union dues.

What many Americans realize–especially those who grew up in Right-To-Work states and take the freedom to choose whether or not to pay union dues for granted–is the fragility of Right-To-Work laws.

A brief history of state Right-to-Work laws…

When the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935, it was an extremely one-sided, pro-union law that gave union bosses the ability to require workers to pay dues (or fees) to unions as a condition of employment. In other words, pay up or be fired.

After 12 years of union abuse, Congress sought to amend the NLRA and passed the Taft-Hartley Amendments. While President Harry Truman vetoed the amendments, there were enough voted to override the President’s veto and Taft-Hartley was added to the NLRA.

Among other items that curtailed abusive unionism was Section 14(b) that allowed states to pass so-called Right-to-Work laws.

  • It should be noted that Right-to-Work laws do not exist for workers not covered by the National Labor Relations Act. For example, workers in the airline and railroad industries work under the 1926 Railway Labor Act. Even though an airline or railroad worker may reside and work in a Right-to-Work state (like Texas, or any of the other 23 Right-to-Work states,) that individual can still be fired for failing to pay union dues or fees under a union contract.

Under the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the NLRA, the only thing that permits Right-to-Work laws to exist is this single statement:

Sec. 14 (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.

If this single statement is removed from the National Labor Relations Act, all Right-to-Work states disappear.

Union-bought Democrats have repeatedly tried to destroy Right-to-Work states…

Ever since the Taft-Hartley Amendments were added to the National Labor Relations Act, unions have sought to have it (or sections of it) repealed.

In 1965-66, after huge Democrat gains in Congress, unions tried to repeal Section 14(b)–the Right-to-Work section of the National Labor Relations Act. However, union bosses’ effort failed…due to the use of the threat of a filibuster in the Senate.

The repeal bill passed the House with 221 votes, but a cloture vote in the Senate secured only 51 votes, far from the necessary two-thirds.

In 1978, under the Carter administration, when unions again tried to pass the Labor Law Reform Act, it was stopped by threat of the filibuster.

As National Right-to-Work Foundation president Mark Mix recently stated:

In 1978, Big Labor’s so-called “Labor Law Reform” power grab was fast-tracked by a union-label Congress, and Jimmy Carter was eager to sign them into law. Only the filibuster let us carry the day.

And all the way back to 1966, when they tried to wipe out all our state Right to Work Laws at one stroke by repealing Section 14b of the Taft-Hartley Act, it was the filibuster that enabled us to block their bill.

Without the filibuster, there would be no state Right to Work laws today, and Big Labor’s power would be nearly absolute.

In 2010, although the bill didn’t advance to a House vote, union-bought Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman introduced legislation to repeal Section 14(b). [Sherman was repeating his 2008 failed attempt to repeal Right-to-Work states.]

In 2011, Sherman and his union-bought colleagues introduced this one-page piece of legislation again to repeal Section 14(b).

With Blue-Dog Democrats facing extinction and more radicalized union-bought politicians replacing them, should Democrats regain control of the House, repealing Right-to-Work laws will be easy in the House.

Once again, as in years past, the only thing that may save Right-to-Work states will be the filibuster.

This is why union bosses and their Democrat pets are fighting to change the rules now–preemptively–as 2014 mid-term elections are right around the corner.

If you really think your Right-to-Work state is safe from unions, think again.

__________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Get LUR updates on your SmartPhone.

Get LUR updates on Twitter.

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

Photo credit: WJBK|myFOXDetroit.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • cheesycon

    This is why Governor Walker wisely has refused to consider “right to work” legislation in Wisconsin. He knows it’s basically a red herring. The union controls he passed here are much more meaningful than RTW in keeping unions under control.

    It is important to stop being lulled into complacency by buzzwords like RTW and look at actual policy. Wisconsin is way ahead of Michigan here.

  • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

    Well, were we to argue the validity of Right to Contract, one must argue the role of government in labor relations at all.

    In all other aspects of business, there is the counter to a right to contract–that is the right not to contract.

    In labor relations, however, the federal government mandates that an employer must bargain with a union, period. While they are not required to agree, the government uses its weight to force an employer to the table.

    While the image most conjure up is that of Big Business, it applies to businesses with two or more workers.

    As long as you are invoking the Founders, the entire field of labor law is not something they were probably anticipating and, one must wonder, even would approve of.

    As/if you’re advocating the abolishment of Right-to-Work laws in lieu of an “employer’s right to contract,” then you must also advocate the freedom not to contract and, therefore, advocate the abolishment of the National Labor Relations Act as well.

    BTW: This post is not an argument about Right-to-Work, it is simply an explanation of why union bosses are pushing to end the current process in which filibusters are employed.

  • commonsenseobserver

    BS.

    For one thing, as has been mentioned, the whole workplace relations system is a massive infringement on the right to freely contract.

    In any case, though, labor unions should have no right at all to negotiate contracts affecting non-members under the laws of these states, and rightly so. If an employer doesn’t want non-union employees, he or she can choose not to hire them without a contract. Big Labor absolutely should not have the right to negotiate for contracts that affect other unrelated people.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Thar she blows.

  • rossg

    So you’re in favor of government regulation that infringes on my constitutional rights when you support the goal of the regulation. Then you Sir are a hypocrite.

  • romeg

    How is is conservative to tell your employees that they must surrender their First Amendment right to free association? How does entering into a labor contract with a Union in any way benefit your or any other business?

    There is nothing about prohibition against compulsory union membership that in any way impairs your freedom to allow a union to organize your employees. It merely prohibits compelling employees to join an organization that is utterly unrelated to your business as a condition of employment in your business.

    But the most puzzling thing about your post is that the relationship between a union and an employer is that it is, by it very nature and design, an adversarial relationship. As I’m sure you are aware, company unions are prohibited. So the notion that prohibiting a clause in a labor contract compelling membership in a union as a condition of employment in no way impair your ability to enter into that contract. IE, if you are actually stupid enough to believe that having your employees serve two masters then there is nothing to stop you from inflicting a wound that will impair your ability to compete against your competitors who chose to eschew the union relationship.

  • satchman3

    This is really a fallacious argument. While it’s true that right-to-work takes away a company’s right to bargain with unions for a ‘sole-source’ agreement, consider the fact that these employers are not complaining about losing that right.

    A second point – if an employer were to enter into a sole-source agreement to hire labor from a single supplier it would do so only if it could get below-market labor rates. That’s the way sole-source agreements generally work. It would most likely negotiate with several potential suppliers to get the most advantageous sole-source agreement possible. If this were allowed in non-RTW states and the employer were not forced to bargain with the union then your point would be valid and no one would be discussing RTW.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Number one, I don’t accept your premise because, in the first place, state and local governments clearly have the authority to restrict contracts that affect other uninvolved people, especially in view of the overwhelming existing regulatory pressure in one direction. And we’re not going to make that disappear, at least on through state governments alone, so there’s no reason at all to pile on them for trying to mitigate Washington’s idiocy.

    Number two, I never said that, and I don’t accept your premise anyway.

  • confab

    I don’t know that I approve of the filibuster in the first place . When we are in power, it limits our ability as much as it does that of the democrats. The Senate becomes a dysfunctional mess that must be greased with pork to pass even the most mundane bills.

    Removing this would REALLY help make people accountable.. You vote? There’s going to be consequences for that vote.. Don’t expect one guy to stop it..

  • confab

    I would agree if it weren’t for federal involvement and the NLRB.

    If we’re talking about ten guys who want something or they will quit? Sure.. That’s their right in an at will country..

    Now, when we’re talking about ten guys who want something or they’ll drag an employer before the Federal Government for punishment? That’s a different matter entirely.. And it’s why I support any restriction possible on union activities, including “Right to Work”

    Frankly, this sort of unseemly activity should be BANNED outright.. Disillusioned employees should QUIT if they’re that unhappy.. Not invoke the authority of the Federal Government to meddle in the affairs of employers and businesses.

    Nobody has a right to a job, you know..

  • confab

    No sir… This kind of intrusion is only necessary because the unions insist on dragging companies before the federal government for arbitration..

    As a result, restrictions on their ability to unionize in the first place has come under attack..

    If you want a REAL union of “the workers” let them band together and make demands, and quit their jobs if they don’t get them.. No fedgov. No arbitration and no other government involvement.

    Then I think you’ll see Conservatives support their activities.. “Collective bargaining” is completely different from making a demand and then crying to the Federal Government to impose your will upon the owners of capital and the creators of jobs.. The latter is just thuggery, and that’s what unionism is today.

  • confab

    I am SICK of union crybabies invoking rights they do not legitimately possess and expecting the heavy hand of the Federal government to come in and force employers to make concessions and accommodate them.

    You want to get rid of “Right to Work” FINE.. I’ll support that..

    AS SOON as Employers have the absolute right to just fire everyone in that union, on the spot, regardless… and for whatever reason they like, or even no reason at all. With zero repercussions..

    You want freedom? THAT is freedom.. The freedom for BOTH PARTIES to just say “NO”

  • rossg

    Way to kill the discussion.