iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
James P. Hoffa

James P. Hoffa

Posted: January 21, 2011 02:06 PM

The vast, corporate-funded campaign to weaken unions and lower wages of middle-class workers has reached into statehouses all over the country.

Last week in Maine, Rep. Tom Winsor requested that so-called "right-to-work" bills be drafted. So did Sen. Lois Snowe-Mello. In New Hampshire, Rep. Will Smith proposed a "right-to-work" law. Similar bills were also proposed in Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, West Virginia, and Missouri. I expect at least half a dozen more.

Working families need to fight like hell against these dangerous attacks on their wages, their benefits and their job security.

Research shows that most people don't know what these anti-union laws really do. That's intentional. You can be absolutely sure that a great deal of time and money was spent coming up with the misleading "right to work" name. It sounds like it prevents workers from being denied a job. That isn't what it does at all.

A so-called "right to work" law prohibits security clauses in union contracts. Security clauses require all workers who receive the benefit of a union contract and union representation to share the administrative costs for those services.

These "right to freeload" laws are on the books in low-wage states like Mississippi and South Carolina. That's not a coincidence. When union wages go down, workers' wages fall throughout the state.

A coordinated network of think tanks, business groups and phony grass-roots organizations has for years been working toward passing these right-to-work (for LESS) laws. Leading the charge is National Right to Work. The only right it defends is billionaires' right to their wealth. The anti-worker group attracts funding from the Mellon heirs, the Wal-Mart heirs and the Coors heirs.

Right-to-work bills are political payback for campaign contributions by corporations and billionaires. They are supported by false claims that they create jobs. What they have done in the states where they've been enacted is lower wages by an average of $5,333 a year. In right-to-work states:

•Fewer people have health insurance and the taxpayers pay substantially more to support the state's Medicaid program.

•The rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher.

•The poverty rate rises; it's 19.1 percent in right-to-work states, compared with 16.6 percent in other states.

Don't be fooled by the misleading propaganda created by billionaires and corporations for the politicians they've purchased. These proposals have nothing to do with the right to work. They're all about forcing people to work for less.

 

Follow James P. Hoffa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TeamsterPower

 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:05 PM on 01/24/2011
We already have this in Arizona, they made it a Constitutional Amendment. We refer to it as "Right to Starve".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
powercosmic
The Anti-Christ
04:27 PM on 01/21/2011
America has lost its balance, the easy life of Middle Class America caused Americans to lose focus.

Starting in 1980 Reagan and the GOP implemented the "Starve the Beast: policies that began the erosion of the Middle Class. These "investments" made by the Corporatists have paid off spectacularly, life for the average American is in rapid decline while corporate profits are stratospheric and billionaires get tax cuts.

They won! You lost, and its just the beginning...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
M Jeffrey
04:01 PM on 01/21/2011
Absolutely, unions made the middle class
photo
Computer Geek
Logician Atheist Lefty
03:37 PM on 01/21/2011
Wow! Not only do these people ruin millions and millions of lives with their gambling on Wall Street, but then to deflect the harsh criticisms they so rightly deserve, what do they do? Do they grovel for forgiveness as anyone who has any sense of morality would do? No. They attack and try to further damage average hardworking US citizens. When will the bottom 98% have had enough? When there are mobs of beggars on every corner? When it happens to you?
03:31 PM on 01/21/2011
I actually agree with not having to pay for a union you don't want. As a worker, I should have a choice to be in a union or not, without having to change jobs. Every employer should have the right to opt-out of the union. They of course would get different wages and benefits from those in the union, but it would be a personal choice. When I was 18, I got a job at a grocery store, and was told I needed to pay union dues, I said I didn't want to. I wasn't given a choice, I quit. I ended up working at Subway Sandwiches with no union making almost a dollar more (About $6.15 compared to $5.35 in 1993).

Unions want the right to organize, and they should, but those who don't want to be a member of the union should have every right to not join, and not gain any benefits they may be bargained either.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
M Jeffrey
04:02 PM on 01/21/2011
agreed but your dollar more is nothing compared to what the unions achieved for the American worker
06:31 PM on 01/21/2011
I agree, but we should have the right to work where we want (if we are hired) and choose whether to be in a union or not. I personally think a good compromise would be making it easier to unionize, but not forcing every employee to join. Everyone has different needs, if opting out of a union and not paying dues is better for one person, they should have that right.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
03:09 PM on 01/21/2011
Right to Freeload! That's perfect! So true!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
M Jeffrey
04:03 PM on 01/21/2011
nonsense and all who like to use the term freeload I doubt are contributing much more than anyone else