Eric Weddle, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier has a good article entitled Right to work creating roadblock for other measures; though I’m probably not entirely unbiased since I get a quote in the article.
The article reviews some of the legislation that’s being held up by the right-to-work bottleneck, including the one banning human trafficking and the statewide smoking ban which supporters would like to have in place when the Super Bowl comes to Indy.
You got substantial quotes there Doug, Very nice!
While I have objections to compulsion in the collection of union dues, I really don’t get why the Republicans have made this a signature issue for this session. They didn’t campaign on it. If they had, and won elections on it, ok. Alas.
I also cannot fathom why Republicans are making such an issue out of this. Less than 10% of the private workforce is union. It’s not like they are really going to have an impact on elections much when most Dems are getting their major contributions from the same big-money interests that are funding the Republicans anymore. Anyway, the pendulum always swings back (even if takes a loooong time) and this is a move that I think the Republicans are going to regret someday when a Dem government is busy disassembling the Chamber of Commerce or some other sacred Republican ox.
You probably have your finger on it in a way, Tom. The unions fund the Democrats almost exclusively, and in terms of huge money. Union contributors make the Koch Bros look like pikers.
Duh- follow the money. I should have seen right through. Alas, sometimes I just like guile.
That’s right, Tom, which means 90% isn’t union. Of those 90%, many think that union workers are freeloaders that don’t work & get insane benefits. When they don’t, they strike.
The point of the law is to win votes by getting support from the anti-union group.
Before I’m flamed, I’m talking about perception here, not what unions actually are. I personally find times where unions fit that description, but other times find that without unions, workers would be taken advantage of. I’m a total fence-rider in this issue.
My concern is mostly with the secondary benefits. I think a union presence puts upward pressure on wages generally — not just in the organized places of employment, but in the surrounding community. I further think that having more money in more pockets (i.e. not concentrated wealth) leads to a better environment for all kinds of businesses.
I think economies are most likely to languish when you have a lot of money and power concentrated in a few people; an enormous underclass with very little money and influence; and not much in the way of a middle class. I think unions help to put upward pressure at the bottom and downward pressure at the top and increase the size of the population in the middle.
There is no way that unions “put[s] upward pressure on wages generally”. Living in the most unionized area of Indiana, as well as working at a heavily unionized firm (not just workers, but building trades contractors as well), what happens is that the higher wages and benefits result in the unionized firms having less workers. That means that there are more workers competing for positions in non-unionized firms, resulting in lower wages there.
This is all about where Democrats get their money from. The unions fund the Democrat party. Right-to-work will put a hit on Democrats’ fundraising ability.
With that said, teachers already are right-to-work, and it doesn’t seem to impact their ability to unionize or fund Democrats.
Buzzcut, I think Doug’s right here. My experience in living in highly unionized areas, and in studying such things is that wages are higher, but so is unemployment. Tradeoffs, and all.
My experience in living in highly unionized areas, and in studying such things is that wages are higher, but so is unemployment.
That very well could be. Obviously, union wages are higher, my contention is that non-union wages are lower. But I could see an explanation where people see those union wages, and refuse to work for less than that, even at non-union firms. That would absolutely raise the unemployment rate.
I’d like to see us get to the point where North Dakota now is, that the unemployment rate is so low (because of oil extracted using the fracking process) that wages increase because of it. Being the only right-to-work state in the Midwest will do that for Indiana.
Maybe put a sunset on the RTW bill – make it expire in 5 years unless unemployment in Indiana is x% better than adjacent states or unless its unemployment has decreased more than y% of the nationwide average for the same period.
Because I remember DST pushed as a job bill and, whatever else you might like or dislike about it, DST has done not a thing for Indiana’s economy. So, I’m a little tired of jobs bills that somehow never make the state more prosperous.
I wouldn’t say that DST has done nothing for Indiana businesses. It has definitely solved the “weird factor” about Indiana that outsiders felt, dealing with Indiana businesses. We never knew what time y’all were on (we in NWI have always been on the superior Central Standard Time).
Now, that may take a little longer to pay out, employmentally speaking.
Regarding a sunset provision, keep in mind that Indiana WAS a right to work state from ’57 to ’65. We changed once, there is no reason that we can’t change again. If this thing is so bad, I am sure that Democrats will benefit electorally from it, and soon be in a position to reverse it (which is what they CLAIM happened last time).
Nah. There is a ratchet effect. The state Senate is not likely to become Democratically controlled in our lifetimes regardless of what voters might think of this policy. So, once done, things like this aren’t likely to be undone.
The statement, “The unions fund the democratic party” is no more accurate than to say that companies fund the republican party. Each company is different and each union is different.
Having an organized workforce does mean higher wages for unorganized workers. All members of management know this is true. When the union workers are able to negotiate an increase, their boss will also receive an increase.
It’s too bad that the Right to Work bill is so misnamed that people don’t even understand what it is. That’s why the public should be educated about what it will mean for them and their children.
Charlie- Have a look at what Open Secret lists for the top donors in the US, and see how it comports.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Doug, have you given up on democracy?
Indiana voted for President Obama. I didn’t expect that in our lifetimes, either.
Not only that, but plenty of Republicans will vote against it. Sue Landske and Ed Charbenneu are against it.