Right to work issues, mostly.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

This week the Ohio Attorney General approved ballot language for a Right-to-Work amendment to the Ohio constitution. I agree with fellow Third Base Politics writer Bytor, who covered the issue a couple months ago: a Right-to-Work amendment in November 2012 is a terrible idea.

The Senate Bill 5 campaign proved Ohio voters remain too receptive to union rhetoric. Trying to rehash the same arguments during a presidential campaign already focused on Progressive class warfare would be a nightmare.

Class: During a 2010 strike, Ohio Education Association staff hung a banner telling the OEA boss to kill himself.

The ridiculousness of public unions prompted me to start writing and researching with a purpose beyond, “here’s what annoys me today, and I know my friends wouldn’t want to hear this rant.” I wish I were more effective at making the case for union reform! If you could find another sap who spent more free time than I did over the past year arguing for the need to reform Ohio’s government union law, I would be amazed. On this subject, Ohio conservatives have a lot of work left to do.

Big Labor’s pockets are deep, and any attempt at union reform means attacking the strength of people who get rich pushing class warfare for a living.

LaborUnionReport, in a terrific summary of Right-to-Work, had this to say about the proposed amendment to Ohio’s constitution:

This brings us back to Ohio.Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant Chris Littleton is spearheading an effort to put Right-to-Work on Ohio’s November ballot. If successful in getting enough signatures to have the initiative placed on the ballot, Littleton and his compadres will likely do nothing more than ensure an Obama victory in Ohio.

With unions collecting more than $8 billion per year in union dues, no amount of money Littleton can raise will be enough to outspend the unions on the issue Right-to-Work—as evidenced by the recent fight over SB5 (Issue 2) in November.

In fact, union bosses and Democrats are likely hoping for Littleton to get enough signatures to put Right-to-Work on the ballot. [Don't be too surprised if unions, either directly or indirectly through third-party operatives, quietly encourage people to sign the petitions.] Once Right-to-Work is on the ballot, unions can turn Ohio into World War IV (again).

Regardless of the amount of money Littleton and his associates may make from putting Right-to-Work on Ohio’s ballot, his efforts put the rest of the nation at risk of seeing Barack Obama win Ohio and, as a result, likely re-election. This is something that, hopefully, even Littleton’s presidential pick, Ron Paul, would see the practical ramifications of avoiding if it meant putting Obama back in the White House for four more years.

• Even though Ron Paul has been cagey on stating he would not run as a third-party candidate, his son, Rand Paul, has stated that it would be impractical, knowing that it would ensure an Obama victory. Hopefully, his Ohio supporters are as practical in that regard when it comes to placing Right-to-Work on November’s Ohio ballot.

As the saying goes: “Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win.” Or, in the case of Ohio, another way to put this is: Forego the battle for now, if it helps you win the war later.

With the nation nearing $16 trillion in debt and owing $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, despite the legislature in Indiana winning Right to Work, putting a Right-to-Work initiative in Ohio is not worth the risk. Not now. Not this year.

I’ve got no beef with Chris Littleton. The 1851 Center and the Ohio Liberty Council do good work, as brilliantly demonstrated by the success of the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment last November. I don’t expect many people to care about my opinion, but I will not be signing a petition to get Right-to-Work on the 2012 ballot.

Before telling me what a spineless pushover I am, take a few minutes to review my work for Senate Bill 5.

Follow me on Twitter: @jasonahart

Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.

Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation.

However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation’s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio’s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his “Ohioans for Workplace Freedom” to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio’s November ballot, perhaps it’s time we explore what’s right and what’s wrong with Right to Work.

What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn’t.

Read More →

Having spent nearly a decade as a former union representative and activist (aka “union thug”) in a Right-to-Work state, it has been interesting to discuss and watch the activities and debates over the Right-to-Work battles occuring within the various states. Having been on both sides of the labor-management equation, it’s easy to see the two sides of the coin—the pluses and the minuses—that come into play with Right to Work legislation.

However, since Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed Right-to-Work legislation on Wednesday, making the Hoosier State the nation’s 23rd Right-to-Work state and, coincidentally, Ohio’s Attorney General approved language that will allow a Ron Paul supporter and Tea Party consultant to use his “Ohioans for Workplace Freedom” to gather signatures to put Right-to-Work legislation on Ohio’s November ballot, perhaps it’s time we explore what’s right and what’s wrong with Right to Work.

What is Right-to-Work? First, for those unfamiliar with Right-to-Work laws, it is easy to be misled by the hyperbole often thrown around (mostly by unions and their allies) that Right-to-Work has anything to do with anything other than the collection of union dues. It doesn’t.

Read More →

By: Brian Sikma

Indiana unions have been very good to Indiana Democrats. Minority Leader Pat Bauer netted over $76,200 in contributions from union PACs in his 2010 re-election campaign. Just one SEIU-affiliated PAC in Indiana gave 158% more contributions to Democrats than Republicans that same cycle and two top local SEIU operatives have a record of giving exclusively to Democratic candidates and local parties.

Perhaps it is at the behest of unions that Indiana House Democrats have chosen to carry on their tradition of opposing right-to-work by staging a walkout. With right-to-work legislation forcing unions to actually prove their value to members and preventing unions keeping non-union workers out of certain jobs, no wonder the House Democrats have decided to let House Republicans (who hold a legislative majority) penalize them with $1,000-a-day per legislator fines.

Right-to-work reform has been bantered about in the state for several years, and last year a 36-day walkout by House Democrats managed to kill the proposal. This year, the drama picked up afresh with a 3-day walkout by Democrats before the threat of fines brought them back.

In public and private Democrat leader Bauer said that there would be no more walkouts this year, and that the Democrat caucus would show up for work even when the right-to-work bill was on the agenda. That promise was promptly broken when Bauer appeared only briefly and by himself on the House floor Tuesday afternoon without his caucus in tow.

The walkout continued with a pep rally / Democrat caucus meeting in the statehouse rotunda on Wednesday morning. After failing to show up in their seats for the 9:00 am session start, House Republicans slapped them with the long-awaited fine. The absence of a quorum has shuttered legislative business all the way from the chamber to committee hearings.

Democrats, instead of fleeing to Illinois like they did last year, have chosen to remain in the state. In fact, a walk around the state capitol will find a number of them milling about or headed to and from their offices. Due to the modest numbers of union protesters that have showed up each day, the capitol is swarming with state troopers who could, under the rules of the House and the provisions of the Indiana Constitution, be ordered to nab a few Democrats and take them to the House chamber where business could resume.

For now, Democrats are enjoying some expensive leisure time and there is no indication of when they will start doing their job again. Union money is an important part of the Democratic Party’s political success, so it’s no wonder that Democrats would put their union-underwritten money stream ahead of constituents. It is, however, quite shameful for them to do so.

Originally published on Hoosier Access by Media Trackers.

“Labor Freedom: where unions are as free to make their case as workers are to make their choice.” – Michigan Freedom to Work Coalition

I attended a (Tue. Sep. 21) “‘Freedom To Work’ Legislation discussion”. Here is a brief report of some of what was discussed…

Read More →

The bad news: she didn’t realize that she was calling members of her own party ‘anti-woman’ before she started screaming to The Weekly Standard‘s John McCormack about how people who voted to defund Planned Parenthood are anti-woman!

TWS: But there were eleven [correction: ten] Democrats who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood, so are those eleven Democrats anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, they’re not, because if you, when I declare someone, when I make a broad statement like that, I look at the balance of somebody’s–where their priorities are, the balance of their record. And so one individual isolated vote here and there does not make you anti-woman.

TWS: So what are the broader votes that make those Democrats who voted on those same issues–on Planned Parenthood on H.R. 3–what makes them not anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don’t think there are any Democrats.

TWS: Eleven.

Note that Debbie Wasserman Schultz happens to be the Deputy Minority Whip; I was unaware that the position was a sinecure.  Or that it causes traumatic memory loss among those who have been burdened by the job.  Or that the Democrats simply pick lying suckweasels for the position… actually, no: I was already aware of that one.

Read More →

The bad news: she didn’t realize that she was calling members of her own party ‘anti-woman’ before she started screaming to The Weekly Standard‘s John McCormack about how people who voted to defund Planned Parenthood are anti-woman!

TWS: But there were eleven [correction: ten] Democrats who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood, so are those eleven Democrats anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, they’re not, because if you, when I declare someone, when I make a broad statement like that, I look at the balance of somebody’s–where their priorities are, the balance of their record. And so one individual isolated vote here and there does not make you anti-woman.

TWS: So what are the broader votes that make those Democrats who voted on those same issues–on Planned Parenthood on H.R. 3–what makes them not anti-woman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don’t think there are any Democrats.

TWS: Eleven.

Note that Debbie Wasserman Schultz happens to be the Deputy Minority Whip; I was unaware that the position was a sinecure.  Or that it causes traumatic memory loss among those who have been burdened by the job.  Or that the Democrats simply pick lying suckweasels for the position… actually, no: I was already aware of that one.

Read More →