GOP's "Right to Work" vs. Your Right to Know the Facts

The Denver Post's resident "me first, everyone else be damned" conservative David Harsanyi does his best stenographer routine today, using his column to promote Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frasier's (R) so-called "right to work" ballot initiative which proposes to force unions to collectively bargain for workers who refuse to contribute to the union. The column is wonderful in both its stylistic banality and copy-and-pasted flavor -- it has been written an infinite number of times by an infinite number of right-wing parrots over an infinite number of years. This makes it a terrific sample specimen to help us dissect all the core fallacies of the overarching "right to work" ideology -- an ideology that at its core is aimed at ending the labor movement.

So without further delay, let's dive right in.

The double standard

Harsanyi starts out by saying it is supposedly a horrible and unprecedented atrocity when unions use the resources its members contribute collectively for political activities which some of its members may or may not support. This, we are led to believe, is unique to unions. Yet, there is no mention that that's precisely what happens when you are a shareholder of a company. Many people own lots of shares of stock and do not support management using company resources - that is, shareholder resources - for the political causes those companies push. Companies spend far more money on political causes than unions (more on that in a moment) and are, in fact, under far less obligation to tell shareholders where they spend resources than unions. So if there's a problem here, it is far more a corporate problem than a union problem. But neither Harsanyi or the Republican hack he transcribes bothers to mention those facts.

The myth of the all-powerful unions

Harsanyi cites an anti-union front group to claim that unions spent $925 million on "political expenditures" during the 2004 election cycle, and that such an factually suspect figure "illustrates a great deal of political influence." But as we all know, "political influence" is relative. $925 million sounds like a lot of money - but it sounds like a little when you compare it to the billions that corporations spend on politics. As I report in Hostile Takeover, the data shows that for every one dollar contributed by labor unions business interests gave $15. When looking at just individual contributions to lawmakers, the gap is even more pronounced: Business executives out-contributed labor leaders and staff by a factor of 1,000 to 1. This data is quite literally not disputed by any newspapers media organizations, or nonpartisan watchdog groups. It is not disputed, in other words, by anyone other than a handful of operatives working inside a few right-wing, corporate-funded organizations. The idea that unions' political contributions make them as powerful or more powerful than Corporate America in the political process is so silly and so factually absurd that no respectable journalist with any integrity would even imply such a thing.

The disdain for democracy

Harsanyi says that when successful elections to unionize a workplace happen, it is a tragedy for those who "happen to vote no" because those workers are forced to collectively bargain with their employer for better wages and benefits (more on that in a moment). Yet, this is precisely what "democracy" is. When you vote "no" for a political candidate who ends up winning, say, a seat in the legislature, you have to live under that legislator's representation. You don't have a choice, because the majority won. If you don't like that, then you don't like democracy (which many conservative pundits don't).

The claim of "freedom" and "choice"

Harsanyi closes his piece with more stenography, quoting Frazier saying "it's a bunch of baloney" that a right-to-work initiative "makes it harder for workers." Frazier claims his proposal "does not hurt workers, it gives them a choice to be a part of a union - if they want to be part of it." Now we're into the real guts of the dishonesty.

No one - not even conservative automatons - disputes all of the benefits that unionized workplaces bring workers: Higher wages, better health care and retirement benefits, etc. Workers get those things by pooling their dues and standing in solidarity to form a union that collectively bargains with the employer. A right-to-work initiative says that any worker can decide not to contribute to those collective efforts, yet work under the contract (and all the better benefits) that the union secured - even if, by the way, the contract previously said the employer will only hire union labor (ie. a union shop). As American Rights at Work notes, unions in "right to work" states "are required by law to defend non-dues paying members involved in a dispute or charged with a grievance at work, but even those employees do not have to contribute dues."

This is not a choice, nor is it freedom, nor is it fair. It sets up a situation whereby unions and their members who stand in solidarity are forced to give away their assets (ie. a contract made possible by union dues and collective bargaining) for free.

*******

So, just to review - according to Harsanyi, Frazier and the tiny handful of corporate elites who run the "right to work" initiatives:

- Unions should not be allowed to spend resources on campaigns that some of its members may not support, but corporations should be allowed to spend resources on campaigns that many of its stockholders do not support.

- Unions are all-powerful political forces whose campaign contributions mean they wield "a great deal of political influence" even though unions contributions are dwarfed by corporate contributions at a ratio of roughly 15-to-1.

- Even if unions win a democratic election, they should not be able to act on behalf of all workers in a workplace because a minority of workers voted no. Yet, in every other arena where democracy exists, the majority should be entitled to the benefits of winning an election.

- Forcing unions and their members to spend resources on collectively bargaining for non-members constitutes "freedom" and allowing workers who don't want to contribute to a union nonetheless get all the benefits of a union is fair.

What these inherent hypocrisies show is that the "right to work" initiatives are designed not to give workers "freedom" but to undermine unions in two ways - first by eliminating their ability to collectively negotiate for union shops and build larger membership with better bargaining power and second by forcing unions to expend resources collectively bargaining for people who do not contribute to the union.

Luckily, Coloradoans seem to understand that "right to work" initiatives are ploys by Big Money interests to drive down wages by undermining the labor movement. As government data shows, the average worker in a "right to work" state makes about $5,000 less per year than other workers. A statewide poll shows that once Coloradoans get beyond the happy-sounding "right to work" misnomer and hear the details of what it actually means, the majority opposes it.

Additionally, even Colorado's business community has said publicly it has "no desire" for Frazier's "right to work" initiative.

But that doesn't deter the crowd pushing the "right to work" initiatives. They don't care if there is no grassroots support for their agenda. Aspiring, ladder-climbing politicians like Frazier have their eye on a different audience. They are undoubtedly looking for praise, approval and support from Grover Norquist's network of out-of-state corporate front groups like the National Right to Work Committee - a sham organization funded almost exclusively by multinational corporations. And they are, as usual, aided and abetted by whatever right-wing mouthpiece happens to have a media platform, and happens to be willing to ignore objective facts.

UPDATE: Just to show you how wildly out of control the anti-union elite is inside the Republican Party, check this out - it has to be the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. Apparently, Republicans believe there is something scandalous about a governor meeting with state employees and unions to - gasp! - discuss their wages, working conditions and rights. The governor, for reference, is the head of state government. But yes - the GOP apparently thinks the head of state government should not be meeting with state government employees. I kid you not. And, sadly, the Rocky Mountain News is trying to claim these meetings were "secret," when in fact, the governor's office had previously (and proudly) told the Rocky Mountain News about the meetings - and the Rocky Mountain News had previously REPORTED on that disclosure (I mean, really, is it that slow a news day???). When I moved to Colorado, some friends had warned me that there were some extreme right-wing elements here. Now I realize what my friends were talking about. Really, what's the next headline? "Newsflash: Sky Is Blue!" or "Breaking: Scientists Determine That Water Is Wet." Or how about this one: "GOP Plots With Corporate Lobbyists to Undermine Labor Movement" - there, you heard it here first. What a scoop I've got.

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[WorkingClass]

I was 23 when I got out of the Army in 1968. I went home to Iowa (a right to work state) and over the next two decades I worked as a meat cutter, a truck driver and a machine operator. All union jobs. All good pay. We bitched about having to represent the guys who wouldn't join but we prospered anyway. In those days there were industries worth organizing. In my town there were steel mills, cereal mills, heavy and light manufacturing plants, meat processing plants, not to mention a building boom for the trades. The workers were easy to organize partly because we were all white males. The country has changed.

As much as I would love to see the labor movement come back to life I think the country would be better served by a Labor Party. De-regulation is where the Republicans went wrong starting with Ronnie Regan. We the people are workers. We are male and female, black and white, young and old, gay and straight, legal and illegal. If we could achieve solidarity we all could live in peace and prosperity. We could live within our means and within our borders. Lets put aside our differences and take back our government so that it can regulate capitalism for the benefit of all of us.

Thank you David for this post and for all that you do.

[Herrington]

WorkingClass, men like you are the hope of our nation. You might enjoy a read of my website on economic policy, available through my profile.

[Cappy]

When Right to Work stuff comes up around here I often think that if someone does not want to contribute to their union, they shouldn't have to. But then, they should work for less than minimum wage, six days a week, no insurance, no vacation, no retirement plan. I mean, it's only fair and it would ram the point home pretty quick.

[Herrington]

Amazing that folks want that 12 cents an hour back from the union when the union got them 12 dollars more an hour. Never underestimate how far down the ladder greed and stupidity can reach.

[yellowdogSC]

It"s no great joy to work in a "right to be screwed" state.

...where any manager or supervisor with even a TRACE of insecurity can fire or torture ANY employee with any intelligence, motivation or ambition.

Perhaps we might best be termed a "dare to be average" state.

[Herrington]

"dare to be average"

LOL (really)

"Right to work" handed me a pink slip for "non performance" at age fifty. Trouble was, two weeks prior to that, I had gotten a 4 out of 4 on my review and a handsome raise. Seems the CTO didn't like me. Tough shit. The company went under 2 years later.

LOL (maniacally)

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

And my family, one in particular, who doesn't have a pot to piss in, BELIEVES this crap shoveled by Fux news.

It simply blows me away how effective these liars have become.

To be fair, I do believe that when the union reps START TO GET PAID, that's when the ball starts to unravel.

Union reps and officials should NOT be paid exhorbitant salaries. Just look at the republicon's greed if you need proof.

[Guitarsandmore]

"Right to Work" was one of those catch phrases used in Colorado to blame unions for a lack of employment. The Rocky Mountain undercurrent of the late 1970s insisted that Colorado was a "Right to Work" state and no union was going to prevent people from obtaining gainful employment. What? What a crock!

In every case I found that companies that had unions had done something evil to deserve them. Second, once unionized companies became better run and more enjoyable places to work for both labor and management. A union contract takes a lot of the guess work out of what"s going to happen to you and what management can do to you. For example, if you show up and try to do your job, you can"t be fired. Much more enjoyable than being harassed and threatened all day long. Companies can waste a lot of time trying to re invent the wheel every day when a good contract can define job descriptions, duties, and expectations, and spell out the essentials ahead of time.

Companies I have worked for that had no union or had large portions of the company that was non union suffered and went out of business or just worked their employees to death until they quit or got sick.

"Right to Work" then really means "Right to Screw you ", and so bend over here it comes again.

[LeftRight]

My union will willingly help non-members if those persons are being unfairly harmed by the employer, but they will not represent them, nor will they provide union money, or time to help them. They will negotiate on their behalf, but they get no say in the union. They also don't have to pay the dues.

[RobertArend]

__two hats

[RobertArend]

"This is not a choice, nor is it freedom, nor is it fair. It sets up a situation whereby unions and their members who stand in solidarity are forced to give away their assets (ie. a contract made possible by union dues and collective bargaining) for free."

This seems to me to be a violation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude". I've often wondered why unions haven't challenged these "right to work" laws in the courts as a violation of the 13th Amendment.

[maddogbitesback]

Unions - loathsome things. Back to the way things should be - children chained to machines, and twelve hour shifts in killing working conditions.

Unions not only made life tenable for workers, they made life in America the American way - prosperous and fairly equitable. Without the unions there is WalMart. Well this is progress in the eyes of Bush and WalMart but for the uninsured, the unemployed and they are a lot more than reported, the future is bleak and getting bleaker. The same is true for America too. Where will the taxes come from. Who will buy even the cheapest products. No profit there. Ford knew that. The Chinese know that.
To be anti union is to be suicidal. Reaganomics led to trickle out not trickle down. Americans have to realize that their farmers and their workers need power or everything will fall apart.

[dadw5boys]

Mexican truckers now driving all over the USA.
Bye BYE AFLCIO.

[Herrington]

Another basket of snakes offered to the unsuspecting by the right.

Unfortunately the right to work states that already exist garner favor with the corporate decision makers at the expense of their populations and those of non right to work states. Simply, if any state in the country passes a right to work law it screws the workers in every state.

So, right to work, even though a local ballot, is a national issue and should be treated as such. And in fact that is the purpose of networks like Grover Norquist"s, to attack labor nationally by acting locally.

It really is like bargaining with the devil himself when the public is misled by innocuous sounding initiative titles. And, the whole dirty tricks in ballot initiatives process irrefutably illustrates that the true agenda of the right wing will not stand an honest revelation to the people.

The must call their basket of snakes a basket of potpourri.

[ordinaryguy]

walmart is big in "right to wirk" states

[dadw5boys]

NO UNIONS = NO MIDDLE CLASS!