We already have a RTW law – passed by the Missouri Legislature and signed by the governor in early 2017. It was supposed to take effect on Aug. 28, 2017. However, on Aug. 18, organized labor groups collected enough signatures to give voters the choice of implementing the law (with a “yes” vote on Prop A) or rejecting it (with a “no” vote). A simple majority wins.

At a labor rally in St. Louis on June 23, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka joined with other labor leaders in proclaiming that RTW would set off a “race to the bottom” for all workers, not just union members. He said: “Proposition A will lower wages, destroy jobs, (and) increase poverty.”

Naturally, no union boss who can limit the supply of labor to members of his own union wants to give up that ability. Who wants competition – when you are in the cushy position of not having to compete? But the idea that competition is bad for growth and job creation is complete nonsense.

In fact, RTW states have consistently outperformed forced-union states in job growth, personal income growth, and economic growth. That’s not a matter of opinion; it comes from hard data provided by three federal bureaus (Census, Labor Statistics, and Economic Analysis) over the ten-year period from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, average job growth in the 22 states with RTW laws in place for most or all of that time was more than twice as fast (at 9.1 percent) as in the 28 forced-union states. The RTW states also had considerably faster growth in personal income (at 54.7 percent compared to 43.5 percent), and a much stronger economic growth (50.7 percent compared to 38.0 percent).

And there were other ancillary benefits, including faster population growth (more than double that of forced-union states). From 2004 to 2014, many Americans voted with their feet in moving into RTW states and out of forced-union states.

The devastation that befell the U.S. auto industry during and after the 1980s exemplifies what happens when companies are kept from responding to market forces as a result of compulsory unionization, forced to pay an artificially high price for labor, and forced to absorb “legacy” costs (health care and pensions) they cannot possibly afford over the long run.

During the Great Recession of 2008–2009, two of the three big automakers – GM and Chrysler – would have collapsed but for government bailouts totaling billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Toyota and other foreign manufacturers that had opened plants in RTW states continued to perform well without bailouts.

In 2012, Michigan – the state that gave birth to the United Auto Workers union – became the 24th state to adopt RTW. Gov. Rick Snyder said that he believed that the legislation would lead to “more and better jobs for Michiganders.”

It is not just employers who benefit from right to work. It is anyone and everyone who seeks employment. Compulsory unionization represents an unfair and counterproductive abridgement of the freedom of people to offer their services to the highest bidder; they should not be locked out of an opportunity because a union with political clout has been granted a broad monopoly over the supply of labor.

The post How and Why Prop A Will Boost Jobs and Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the time, SEIU was trying to organize Minnesota’s child care providers. When Jennifer got around to reading the petition, she realized that that it wasn’t about a health plan, as the man had told her, but part of a union organizing drive. Jennifer had been lied to.

Jennifer refused to play ball. Sometimes organizers tried to intimidate her. She recounts organizers following her to her car in an effort to show her that she was being watched. However, after she spoke out, most of the intimidation stopped. Eventually the Supreme Court affirmed the right of private care providers not to be forced into SEIU with the Harris v. Quinn decision.

In Missouri, we’re seeing similar stories coming out of SEIU organizing campaigns.

Take Mark Manteuffel, a biology adjunct at Washington University. St. Louis Public Radio reports this story about an SEIU organizer showing up at Mark’s doorstep and approaching his wife:

“They were just very pushy and rude,” Manteuffel said of the union representatives, “demanding my cell phone number. And they didn't introduce themselves first off, they just approached her and asked for me. So she stood back and asked them who they were and why they were looking for me. And she said that I would contact them if I was interested after they introduced themselves.

“The second time, the person said that they would show back up again, and she said no, he will contact you if he's interested. And they kind of huffed and puffed and said again that they would show up, and she said no, you're not listening to me, if you show up again, I will call the police and have you removed. Then the gentlemen seemed to get it.”

The campaign to organize Missouri’s in-home health care attendants is another front where SEIU has been active in our state. In 2010, the SEIU-backed Missouri Home Care Union won the right to represent all home care attendants despite receiving votes from less than 16% of attendants. Since then, the union has sought support from attendants who aren’t already members.

I’m hoping that the tactics used in Missouri don’t get as bad as they’ve been in other places. However, SEIU is not a member of the AFL-CIO and doesn’t always play by the same rules as an AFL-CIO union. For people who feel they’ve been targeted or persecuted for resisting SEIU’s organization drives, speaking out might be the best defense.

(Ms. Parrish is pictured above telling her story at an event sponsored by the National Right to Work Foundation. You can watch her presentation here.) 

The post Standing Up to Hardball Tactics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ms. Friedrichs is a 27-year veteran teacher who currently works in Buena Park, California. According to an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation, she first encountered the teachers union when she tried to get her school to deal with a colleague who had been abusive to students. As she said, “They couldn’t get rid of her because of teacher tenure. . . . There was absolutely nothing, from my perspective and what I was told, that I could do.”

Friedrichs tried to work with her union, volunteering within it and working to convince her colleagues to be more amenable to some education reforms (like school vouchers) that might give more opportunities to her students. And what, according to Friedrichs, was the union’s response? “They punished me for standing up. . . . For that whole year, for that whole fight, I was treated like dirt.”

Teachers are too important to be treated like that.

Ultimately, what is at issue in this case is very simple: the right of free association, a right protected by the First Amendment. Ms. Friedrichs and thousands of public servants like her do not want to be forced to support a union that does not represent their interests or values.

As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, for much of the history of the American labor movement, private unions supported that right for public employees. In 1959, the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council wrote “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.” Why? “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” That was George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, in 1955.

The issues associated with public unionism are clear. Institute researchers and scholars have written about the dangers of allowing government unions to elect their bosses and thus sit on both sides of the table during negotiations over salaries and benefits, pensions, hiring and firing procedures, and a variety of other policies (like school vouchers) that might only tangentially affect their membership. You can find a small sample of our work here, here, and here.

A victory in the Friedrichs case would strike a blow for individual freedom; it would recognize the millions of teachers and other government workers across the country not simply as interchangeable widgets who all think the same way, but as individuals with independent ideas and preferences.

This kind of fight is worth fighting. We’re happy to join it.

(Click on the link below if you would like to read the full text of the amicus brief.)

The post Why We Joined Rebecca Friedrichs’ Fight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here we go.

Question 1: Who said the following – a union, or the Tea Party?

[F]or two years we have sought from the Administration and Congress interpretations to the ACA [Affordable Care Act] that merely allows us keep the health plans we currently have: nothing more, nothing less. No special treatment. …

Question 2: Union … or … Tea Party?

[T]he unintended consequences of the ACA will lead to the destruction of the 40 hour work week, higher taxes …

Question 3: Union … or … Tea Party?

[T]he Congress and the Administration have demonstrated they have the authority and power to make dozens of other corrections to the ACA, including taking care of big business and well-paid Congressional staff members…

And Question 4: Is this a union … or the Tea Party?

[T]hat [this group urges] Congress and President Obama to undertake immediate changes to the implementation and regulation of the ACA.

If you answered “Tea Party” to all of these, you would be … completely wrong. The statements come from a resolution that the Nevada chapter of the AFL-CIO passed last week “Urging the President and Congress to Uphold Their Promise for Unions to Keep their Current Healthcare Plans Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

As it turns out, even if union members like their plans, they may not get to keep them, thanks to provisions in the ACA that incentivize employers to dump some workers into the exchanges rather than provide them health benefits. Indeed, union health care benefits are a big reason many members join a union in the first place; without the robust health benefits that the union negotiates, union membership would become considerably less valuable and paying union dues would become less attractive to union members. Less union power means fewer union members means less union power … you get the picture. Let’s just say unions should have read the bill more closely before they supported it.

But at least it seems like we’re all in agreement on one thing: it’s time to reopen the law. The question now is, when will the obstructionism in Washington, D.C., end so real health care reform can begin? How long will Americans, union and non-union, have to stomach the ACA before the ACA’s architects concede they made a lot of mistakes and that the law needs to be overhauled? Stay tuned.

The post Time For A Game Of ‘UNION… OR… TEA PARTY!’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Flinders rose during public comments to restate her opposition to the 1:1 technology program, which would have the district buying 17,000 computer tablets. She was very critical of Superintendent Stephen Green and his unresponsiveness to her questions about the program. Of the initiative itself, she said:

There is no 1:1 implementation plan.

But don’t take my word for it. Ask to see the classroom diagrams for each school showing which classrooms currently have working wireless access points or working Eno boards, or working projectors, or enough electrical outlets, or proper furniture. For the classrooms that don’t have those things, ask administration to show you the cost and the timeline for getting these classrooms ready for 1:1. Ask to see proof that the district has enough bandwidth, and if there isn’t, how much will enough cost.

Ask to see the procedure for students getting computers. Is there a form? Do students sign for it? Do parents? What happens to students whose parents don’t or won’t sign for it? Ask for that written procedure. What’s the plan and procedures for the student who leaves the computer at home? What happens if a computer is stolen, or broken, or lost? Ask to see that procedure. Ask to see the plan to show students how to use and take care of their device.  Ask to see the insurance policy. Is there insurance? Are you requiring parents to pay a fee? Ask to see the process for gaining parental permission.

Ask to see the procedure at the school site for checking out computers to students. Who’s in charge of it at the school site? How will teachers print student work? Nine hundred students printing to one copier could be a problem, because there are no printers in the classrooms. Has the paper and copier budget been increased? Ask to see the building plan for accounting for computers.  Will both classified and certified staff members get these computers?  Where does it say that? Ask to see the plan and timeline for training staff and students on the hardware.

Board Chair Airick West asked Flinders what she would propose instead. She rattled off several suggestions for launching a much smaller — and less costly — pilot program involving perhaps just one school in the district. Remember, she  was given almost no time to prepare a response.

We previously wrote about the problems with the proposed technology program and we lauded Flinders’ opposition. The “plan” she criticizes was “developed” by school district administrators being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and benefits. Yet it seems to be full of holes.

Flinders was “acting superintendent” because she seemed to be the only one providing thoughtful suggestions to the board or to be interested in really holding the superintendent and district staff to account.

The post Andrea Flinders, Kansas City’s Acting Superintendent appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.

The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.” …

Like most other federal workers, IRS employees currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which also covers members of Congress. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp offered the bill in response to reports of congressional negotiations that would exempt lawmakers and their staff from Obamacare.

The NTEU joins the roofers and food unions, the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other unions that don’t want to be subject to important provisions (for a variety of reasons) in a law they helped pass. If millions of supporters of the law’s passage don’t support even-handed enforcement and implementation of the law, why is it the law of the land at all? And why should it continue to be?

The post Obamacare-Enforcing IRS Employees Don’t Want Obamacare Enforced Against Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s a quote from a video published Monday that captures two University of Missouri–St. Louis professors, identified as Judy Ancel and David Giljam, teaching a publicly funded course about labor negotiations. In the video, both Ancel and Giljam seem to advocate in favor of violence, physical intimidation, and industrial sabotage as tactics to be used during labor negotiations.

It’s a stunning video that I encourage you to watch for yourself. If these tapes accurately reflect what’s being taught in those classes, UMSL and UMKC — the two universities teaching the course — have a lot explaining to do. It appears that, at least as far as UMSL is concerned, they’re taking the matter very seriously.

Obviously, the public should not be funding, or be forced to fund, classes that advocate violent and illegal behavior against its citizens. Such instruction is precisely the opposite of what a publicly financed education is about.

But the episode raises another, arguably more important, concern: Is the University of Missouri system really in control of its labor negotiations program, or are labor unions effectively running the show on the taxpayers’ dime?

It’s an open question that needs to be explored, because if unions are essentially writing and teaching the curriculum for these classes and, not only that, violence is being advocated, it’s an outrageous exploitation of regular Missourians.

Unfortunately, there’s reason to believe that some collaboration is going on between the universities and organized labor. For those unfamiliar with the it, the Labor Tribune is a Saint Louis–based newspaper that markets itself as the “OFFICIAL VOICE OF THE AFL-CIO” in the city.

With 110 subscribing unions, the Labor Tribune is the only AFL-CIO endorsed newspaper in the bi-state metropolitan region.

Key word: “VOICE.”

Long before the videos were released, the Tribune promoted the courses that have now been caught on tape as part of a story about UMSL’s Labor Studies Certificate Program. The Tribune’s piece described the certificate program as follows:

The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy.

With a grounding in history, political science, law and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world.

Completion of the program results in 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.

Click to enlarge

But was that a news piece, or a press release? The words used in the article are essentially a copy-paste job of the words the university itself uses to describe the program:

The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives, and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy. With a grounding in history, political science, law, and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership, and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world. Completion of the program earns 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.

So the AFL-CIO’s “official” newspaper publishes a press release for a program for union “activists,” neutrally describing a program that actually promotes violence and industrial sabotage against Missourians — during, of all things, a recession. Adding insult to not-so-metaphorical injury, the endeavor is supported by Missouri tax dollars.

That’s a big, big problem.

Taxpayers deserve to be adequately assured that their tax dollars are not only being spent wisely, but that those tax dollars won’t be used by special interests as a cudgel — figuratively and literally — against them. Taxpayer-funded education should not be an arm, or a “VOICE,” of special interests, but a neutral arbiter enriching dialogue, not impoverishing it.

Ancel may want to teach a class on irony, too. Note the headline.

The post Indoctrinating, Not Educating, on the Taxpayers’ Dime appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The irony, of course, is that nothing demonstrates “the will of the citizens” more than, say, letting them vote for themselves!

This is yet another example of a problem I have noted several times before: Powerful interests can (and do) game the system to prevent Missouri citizens from voting on issues of great importance. The most prominent example is the way that the Missouri Municipal League has for years been engaging in litigation strategically calculated to keep eminent domain reform off of the ballot. The most damning element, in my mind, is that at least in the case of the Missouri Municipal League, the opponents acknowledge the virtual certainty that eminent domain reform would be approved if the citizens were allowed to vote on it.

If an organization or some other group of citizens is concerned about the wisdom of any given ballot initiative, they are well within their rights to communicate their concerns to voters and to try to persuade Missourians not to approve the proposition. But to manipulate the system in such a way that citizens are denied the opportunity to adopt what they believe to be valuable changes to their laws is reprehensible.

The post The Will of the People, Revisited appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With revenues down by about $1 million, the Saint Charles County Council met to debate the merits of granting $80,000 to market an airport expansion project that doesn’t fall within the county. The project is a proposed expansion of the Lambert–Saint Louis International Airport that would create a China hub in the hopes of increased international trade.

Developer Paul McKee, who put forward and completed the Winghaven development in Saint Charles County, has been a strong backer of the China hub expansion. McKee has said publicly that his latest project, a 1,500-acre redevelopment of the city of Saint Louis’ north side, hinges on Chinese business for many of the project’s promised 22,000 new jobs.

But county council members were skeptical when they held a work session on Monday to review the proposed county’s 2010 budget. Council member Cheryl Hibbeler brought up the issue first.

During 2009, she said, the county council allocated $37,500 for marketing of the China hub expansion. In 2010, the amount increased to $80,000, a significant amount of money for the county, with what she saw as no guarantee of a return.

“It basically boils down to finding enough to pay this one guy … to attract enough China business to Lambert,” she said.

The $80,000 is part of a $931,000 bill for annual marketing costs that the county, along with others, such as Saint Louis County, is considering paying. According to County Executive Steve Ehlmann, the marketing costs include not just salary for one man, but work to be done by a number of individuals working for a single marketing firm.

Oversight of how that money will be spent was another concern for Hibbeler.

“Who’s going to be deciding whether this $931,000 is really working?” she asked.

And, even then, she wondered aloud, what were the chances of the China hub coming to fruition, and bringing new jobs and business to the county? At one point, Hibbeler characterized the project as a “crapshoot.”

County Council Chairman Joe Brazil also questioned why the county should spend money on marketing the project. Brazil, who is critical of tax incentives and subsidies, asked whether the county could expect competitive bid reports and cost documentation if it granted the $80,000.

“I don’t know that you’re required to bid this,” Ehlmann responded.

In 2008, stemming from concerns about bids being awarded as political favors, the county auditor conducted a review of a few tax development districts (TDD) in Saint Charles County, including Winghaven. Of the five TDDs surveyed, all failed to adhere to a complete competitive bidding process. The Winghaven TDD was cited in the review because two of the project’s codevelopers were connected to contractors hired to do work for the development.

Ehlmann was the most vocal supporter of the budgeted marketing expense. The project, he said, has the support of the governor, the chamber of commerce, and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and would bring spillover business to the county.

“If we don’t get this China trade, that’s where it will go, it will go to Chicago,” he said.

Other counties and municipalities weren’t asked to be a part of the project, Ehlmann said, but Saint Charles was invited to participate.

“I don’t think this is going to rise or fall [based on] whether we put our money in,” Ehlmann said. “The question is, do we want a seat at the table?”

After more debate about whether the county could spend the $80,000 elsewhere, council member Nancy Matheny suggested that the group reconsider the expenditure at a later date.

“As tight as we are, with no raises or anything else, it’s hard to allocate to something we don’t understand,” she said.

The council made no decision during its work session, and the $80,000 remained in the proposed 2010 budget. But, said Brazil after the work session, the council will likely vote on whether to strike the expenditure during the next few weeks.

The post Saint Charles Debates $80K Funding for Publicity of Developer’s Airport Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.