Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/02/2000 08:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 309-RIGHT TO WORK Number 0060 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 309, "An Act relating to the relationship between employees and labor organizations; and prohibiting collective bargaining contracts that require employees to join a labor or employee organization; and providing for an effective date." Number 0148 RANDY LORENZ, Researcher to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State Legislature, said HB 309 basically makes it illegal to force Alaskan workers to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Alaskan workers retain the right to join a union or support a union, only now it would be an individual's choice. He noted that Stephen Goodrick would explain the intricacies of HB 309 and how it will improve the Alaskan employment scene. Number 0286 STEPHEN GOODRICK, Vice President, National Right to Work Committee, read the following testimony about HB 309: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Stephen Goodrick, and I am Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee, a two-million- member association dedicated to the principle that every worker must have the right - but no worker should ever be compelled - to join or support a labor union as a condition of employment. With this in mind, the National Right to Work Committee enthusiastically endorses HB 309 and SB 230, the Alaska Right to Work Act, and would like to commend Representatives Kohring and Green in taking the first step toward freeing Alaskan workers from the tyranny of compulsory unionism. The bill is simple. It makes it illegal to force workers to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment, to get or keep a job. It does nothing to diminish the right of individual workers to join and participate freely in a labor union of their own choice. What could be more basic or more fair? Unfortunately, today in Alaska thousands of working men and women have no choice. The message to these independent-minded workers is unmistakable: join the union and pay union dues or don't work. There is no natural right in a free society for any private association to compel representation or financial tribute. The true role of government in a free society is to protect the individual's ability to exercise his or her right without harassment or interference. Passing right to work would let Alaska's workers say to the union "persuade me - don't force me." That's the American way! Unions operate the same in right-to-work states as they do now in a forced-unionism state like Alaska. Under a right-to-work law, the only thing that changes is that union officials can no longer negotiate for a union security clause - a contract that forces workers to pay union dues. Despite misinformation from union officials, Right to Work has no effect on nominal wages. According to the Union Membership and Earnings Data Book, published by the Bureau of National Affairs, the average weekly earnings of private-sector union members in a right-to-work state is $600, while union members earn $594 in non-right-to-work states. But Alaska's failure to pass a right-to-work law has costs far above the injustice to individual workers: every Alaskan pays the price in lost jobs, higher taxes and a lower standard of living. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) own numbers show right-to-work states have higher real income. The AFL- CIO's information comes from U.S. Department of Labor data, which does not adjust for cost of living, state by state. After adjusting for cost of living, the benefits of right to work are crystal clear: Average Hourly Earnings in Manufacturing 8 percent higher in right-to-work states Average Weekly Earnings in Manufacturing 7.6 percent higher in right-to-work states Average Per Capita Personal Income $1,100 higher in right-to-work states Average Annual Pay $900 higher in right-to-work states Number 0721 These numbers confirm the right-to-work advantage reported by Nobel prize-winning economist James Bennett of George Mason University. Indeed, the gap is even wider, Dr. Bennett found, as a result of adjusting for state-by-state differences in taxation. MR. GOODRICK noted that organized labor collects - according to their own figures that they file with the federal government, in the private sector alone - $13 billion annually. Of that, $5 billion comes from workers like those in Alaska who would be fired if they stopped paying union dues. Then, he said, organized labor spends their forced-dues, vicious-cycle money on placing their political puppets in Congress and in state legislatures. He pointed out that unions have a big impact on the political process, and one of the corollary impacts of their political effort is a rise in local/state taxes. He continued to read his testimony: A typical urban family in a right-to-work state has $2,852 more after-tax purchasing power than the same family would have in a non-right-to-work state," according to Dr. Bennett in his report, "A Higher Standard of Living in Right-to-work States." Dr. Bennett showed that much of the reason families are so much better off in right-to-work states is because they pay nearly 25 percent less for food, housing, health care, transportation, utilities, property taxes and college tuition than families in forced-unionism states. Since 1980, per-capita income has grown in right-to- work states by 11 percent more than non-right-to-work states. Total economic growth in right-to-work states has outpaced non-right-to-work states by 25 percent since 1991 and is projected to do the same until 2001 by 9 percent, according to Financial World magazine. The importance which businesses attribute to a state's policy encouraging cooperative and voluntary relations between labor and management has been clear for many years. According to M. Elizabeth Morris, president and chief economist of Insight Research Corporation, one of the country's dominant competitors in corporate relocation research, 90 percent of companies use forced collective bargaining as a first "kick out" criteria and choose to locate only in right-to-work states when their overall operating requirements give them any latitude on this issue. Put simply, all other things being equal, 90 percent of companies will automatically eliminate non-right-to-work states when relocating. The results of this thinking can be clearly seen. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, between 1960 and 1993 right-to-work states created nearly 2.7 million new, high-paying manufacturing jobs, while during the same period forced-unionism states lost about 1.4 million jobs. The evidence is clear: employee freedom and prosperity go hand in hand. As I have shown, the case for right-to-work legislation in Alaska is compelling from any legitimate perspective - moral, political or economic - but union officials who want to keep coercing union dues from unwilling workers will say or do anything to keep the forced-dues money rolling into their coffers. By fighting against right to work, union officials are telling you the only way they can stay in business is by forcing their members to pay dues. That's outrageous. Right-to-work supporters know that when workers see a union truly representing them, they won't need to be compelled to pay tribute - they will gladly join. A good labor union has no need for a compulsory system to attract members, and a bad union doesn't deserve them. In the interest of the rights of working men and women in Alaska, of sound public policy, and of basic fairness, I urge you to support HB 309 and SB 230. Number 1192 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked for a copy of Mr. Goodrick's testimony. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked who is bringing HB 309 forward. MR. GOODRICK replied that the National Right to Work Committee had been notified by their members in Alaska. He believes there are between five and ten thousand members in Alaska who are the impetus behind HB 309. The National Right to Work Committee applauds the sponsors in their effort to bring HB 309 forward and publish the facts. Number 1309 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there are thousands of employees in Alaska who have come to Representative Kohring and suggested this language. MR. GOODRICK answered that over the years thousands of individuals from Alaska have contacted the state legislature in favor of a right-to-work policy. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON specified that he just wanted to know how many employees in Alaska have come to Representative Kohring and suggested this language. Number 1321 MR. LORENZ replied that about six or seven constituents had requested that Representative Kohring draft HB 309, and the main spokesperson for that group was Tuckerman Babcock. In response, he added, Representative Kohring had asked Mr. Lorenz to research the right-to-work issue, and Mr. Lorenz found that there was credible evidence worth investigating. He explained that in researching the issue he had contacted the National Right to Work Committee and was helped by that committee to draft HB 309. Number 1371 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Mr. Lorenz could "guesstimate" whether the statement that Mr. Goodrick had made regarding thousands of members was correct. He also asked whether Mr. Lorenz knew how many union members have contacted Representative Kohring. MR. LORENZ replied that he did not know any personal contacts, but the general flavor of the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley is against forced union [labor]. He said a large following of people in the area would like to see Alaska become a right-to- work state, and he had spoken to about 50 of them who wanted to do something about unions. Number 1419 MR. GOODRICK said that he does not know of a recent poll in Alaska regarding popularity in Alaska of the right-to-work proposal, but across the nation eight out of ten Americans think it is unfair and improper to require a worker to pay union dues as a condition of employment. He offered his opinion that the numbers would be higher in Alaska given the Alaskan population's "independent streak," and it would be good for someone to get a poll done on the subject. He noted that in the national poll already cited, 56 percent of all union households supported right to work, for the simple reason that they know the problem. He indicated many union households are being forced to pay. Number 1491 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON informed the committee that a lion's share of employees who work in Juneau are affiliated with organized labor in one form or another, but many employees do not belong to a union. He indicated not one person has come to him asking that the legislature support the elimination of the right to bargain freely, although he has not heard from people who work in the mines or in construction and so forth. People do have individual labor problems that he tries to solve for them, but not that the laws on the books are unfair. He said he is trying to gauge where support for HB 309 is coming from, and six or seven people in the Mat-Su Valley does not sound like a tremendous band-led march. Number 1596 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked where Mr. Goodrick had come from. MR. GOODRICK replied that he had come from Washington, D.C. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said that he understood Mr. Lorenz to say that Tuckerman Babcock from the Mat-Su had spearheaded HB 309. MR. LORENZ answered that he was not sure, but Tuckerman Babcock seemed to be one of the focal points of HB 309. He noted that other individuals had approached Representative Kohring about doing something with the forced-union concept. Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Lorenz knew where Mr. Babcock works and to which union Mr. Babcock pays dues. MR. LORENZ replied that Mr. Babcock is with the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA). REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Babcock belongs to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). MR. LORENZ said he did not know whether Mr. Babcock had union ties. Number 1669 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Goodrick if the committee is discussing the right to work at a union job and not belong to that union, or does that mean a right to work at a union job and belong to the union and not pay dues. MR. GOODRICK replied that HB 309 would abolish the practice of requiring workers to pay any union dues whatsoever in order to find or keep a job in any company in the private sector. It would eliminate the concept of the union-only job, which he characterized as a creation of federal law. Mr. Goodrick said he envisions that with passage of HB 309 it would be illegal to discriminate against any worker on the basis of whether or not he/she is a union member. Currently, under federal law, it is a very serious unfair labor practice if an employer discriminates against a prospective employee in hiring or firing him/her based on union affiliation. However, if the employer and the union collaborate to fire a worker because he/she is not a union member, that is encouraged under federal policy. Now the committee has the opportunity to correct that. Number 1767 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS reiterated that the object of HB 309 is to not pay dues. MR. GOODRICK replied that the object of HB 309 is for workers to have the choice of where their money should go. If workers want to pay union dues, they can do so, but if not, HB 309 would give workers freedom to make that choice themselves. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if people would stop paying dues and still accept advantages that the union has brought them over the years, human nature being what it is. Number 1807 MR. GOODRICK answered that it is ironic that organized labor has a low opinion of the low caliber of the workforce in this country. He said he believes workers will join organizations that do the workers good if they see that as being in their interest. He quoted Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL-CIO, as saying that "the workers of America will adhere voluntarily to organizations rather than those that compel them to pay." Number 1838 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS maintained that it is human nature not to pay this week for something that was fought for last year or ten years ago. MR. GOODRICK noted that a very corrupt system develops, human nature being what it is, when someone has the ability to extract money from people against the people's will. He added that such a situation also results in lack of accountability between the head of a union and membership if the member does not have any choice regarding payment of dues to the union. He suggested the "free riders" in this system are not the working people but are those who force other people to pay the salaries of the free riders, whether working people want to pay or not. Number 1905 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if the sponsor of HB 309 and his supporters in the Mat-Su understood labor laws regarding the collective bargaining process in view of the [sponsor] statement, which says: "Simply put, HB 309 makes it illegal to force Alaskan workers to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment." He voiced his understanding that workers are not forced to pay union dues, and if they do not wish to be union members, they do not pay union dues but do pay what is called a representation fee, which is determined by independent arbitration based on the cost of representing workers in the working environment. Number 1963 MR. LORENZ replied that Representative Smalley's statement is not entirely true because Mr. Lorenz remembers that when he was a member of a union he was required to pay full dues even though he did not want representation. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he wanted to see the statistical data of the five to ten thousand members in Alaska because it is surprising to him. Number 1976 MR. GOODRICK agreed to supply a list of the five to ten thousand members by zip code. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Goodrick if members of his organization paid dues. MR. GOODRICK answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Goodrick if he would represent his members if they did not pay dues. Number 2046 MR. GOODRICK noted that his organization represents many independent businesses and employees that do not pay dues, but the organization is not obligated to represent people who do not pay dues. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked which states are right-to-work states. Number 2077 MR. GOODRICK replied that there are 21 right-to-work states, mostly located in the south and west of the United States, including Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Utah and Nevada. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how negotiation works in those states if, for example, everybody opts out of unions. MR. GOODRICK answered that then the union would not have any role between employees and employers; employers would have to deal directly with their own employees. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Goodrick if he had studied any of those situations to see what kind of negotiations workers came up with. Number 2135 MR. GOODRICK replied that anecdotally his organization has found naive employers who were willing to provide good health benefits and wages to their employees, but union business managers had refused to negotiate anything until the union security clause was signed. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that was not her question. She asked how workers negotiate when there are no unions and whether Mr. Goodrick had studied what happens in those situations. MR. GOODRICK replied that in 80 percent of companies in America, there are no unions. The employer talks to the employee, and they negotiate between themselves what the employee wants to work for and what the employer is willing to pay. Number 2210 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether Mr. Goodrick had compared what those companies and employees earn with companies that have unions, to see what the differences are. MR. GOODRICK replied that he is sure that there are studies by other organizations. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Mr. Goodrick had that information. MR. GOODRICK answered no because he does not take a position on that issue. Number 2224 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said Mr. Goodrick had provided some statistical information regarding wages in right-to-work states versus the collective bargaining union process. Representative Smalley asked if those figures include wages, medical plans, working conditions, safe working environment, hours and retirement security benefits. MR. GOODRICK replied that all wages and benefits are included. Number 2253 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired if Mr. Goodrick had a breakdown of wages and benefits comparable to those paid by union activities. MR. GOODRICK answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the 21 right-to-work states are fairly recent or have been right-to-work states for a few years. MR. GOODRICK emphasized that with the support of $13 billion, there exists much organized opposition in each state where right- to-work laws are trying to succeed. Number 2325 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN repeated his question, then asked when Texas became a right-to-work state. MR. GOODRICK answered that he thinks it was in the '40s. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had asked because he was interested in knowing if perhaps they had been union states previously, and once they got wages up to par, then the states opted out; he suggested that if that were the case, then Mr. Goodrick's statistics could be out of kilter. However, since right-to-work states have been right-to-work for quite a while, then he thinks that Mr. Goodrick's statement that right-to-work states generally have higher wages than those that are union states is a valid statistic. Number 2362 MR. GOODRICK replied that over the last 30 years it has been getting better and better. Although some states have passed right-to-work laws recently, the majority passed them right after Congress gave them authorization to do so. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick's organization contributes to political campaigns. MR. GOODRICK answered absolutely not. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick's organization collected dues. MR. GOODRICK replied in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired as to the organization's annual gross collection. MR. GOODRICK answered $10 million annually. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how Mr. Goodrick uses that money. Number 2401 MR. GOODRICK replied that the money is used to communicate with members, and he is going to advise supporters to contact their legislators regarding HB 309. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if Mr. Goodrick makes a contribution to anyone in Congress, anyone in the other states, or anyone in the right-to-work states. MR. GOODRICK answered that his organization does not endorse, support or oppose any candidate for any office - local, state or federal. Number 2429 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he admired Mr. Goodrick's courage and asked if Mr. Goodrick had ever been threatened. MR. GOODRICK replied that $13 billion in the hands of unaccountable officials often does result in violence and coercion. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how many states have rescinded the right-to-work law. MR. GOODRICK answered that not one state has rescinded the right- to-work law; however, one right-to-work law (not his version) was struck down by the courts in Colorado. He said he wanted to point out that fact and be very clear. When Representative Hudson urged him to be honest, Mr. Goodrick also noted that the right-to-work law was repealed in Louisiana in the late '70s, then reenacted four years later. Number 2577 ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said he appreciated the sponsor bringing the gentleman from Virginia to tell Alaska what is good for Alaska and its workers. He explained that there are a number of protections for a union member who is either a conscientious objector or who objects to the political or non-bargaining unit activities of his/her union. First of all, unions face a tremendous uphill battle to even organize and then retain a majority status. The national labor relations law has really been vitiated by a number of decisions, court actions and practices by some employers - by large employer groups, particularly since the '80s - so that the [United States] probably has the weakest collective bargaining law, in terms of the unfettered right to organize, in the Free World. He acknowledged that workers still have the right to organize and courageously manage to get together to form a collective voice as a union in order to deal on some kind of parity with their employers. He indicated that this right has been a supported, stated policy of the United States, and the only statement in Alaska Statute is in the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), but the state is on record in support of collective bargaining. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN emphasized that so-called right-to-work bills are just an attempt to break unions. Very clearly, that is their effect, as demonstrated by unionization rates before and after right-to-work laws are passed by states. He emphasized that there have only been two passed in the last 25 years, in Louisiana and Idaho, the most recent in 1986. He remarked that [right-to-work bills] are an exception to the federal labor law from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that was vetoed by President Truman; the veto was overridden, and then most of the states that have a right-to-work [law] opted out the next year. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN reminded the committee that workers are the union. Throughout the country there may be problems in various places, but Alaskan unions are very democratic. He added that he has been a winner and loser in union elections, and if the committee thinks it is tough losing an election, wait until union brothers and sisters turn a fellow union member out by election; that is tough but that is democracy, and that is the way the system works. He recognized that even if a union member is not able to convince 30 percent of his/her co-workers to at least hold a de-certification election to end a union, a union member has other avenues open. He observed that a union member can try a de-authorization vote to end the union security clause, and he wants to be clear that unions do not impose union security clauses. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN noted that although unions negotiate union security clauses with employers, nothing requires an employer to sign a union security clause. A union must obviously have the support of a majority of members in the bargaining unit in order to ratify the contract, and must convince the employer that the members are enough behind that desire to, in effect, tax themselves, just as do many other groups in Alaska in order to pay for collective bargaining expenses. He noted that there is a de-authorization process whereby without de-certifying the union, union members can de-authorize or end the union security clause. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN explained that for three years after the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) conducted de-authorization elections, and the NLRB suspended doing any more elections in 1950 because in thousands of previous [de-authorization] elections, 91 percent of the affected union members had voted to retain their union security clause. However, there still is a process for de- authorization, and beyond that there are U.S. Supreme Court decisions. He mentioned the General Motors case dating back to 1963 in which if a union member refused to join the union, the individual had an option of becoming what is called a financial core member. He indicated that the individual paid a fee that was just an equivalent amount of his/her fair share of the union's representation grievance handling costs, not including any political or even organizing activities costs. Number 2882 COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN related that there are even provisions for political objectors to be rebated the amount charged by the union for its political activities under the CWA vs. Beck [U.S.] Supreme Court decision. He emphasized that although he might personally think that it is not inappropriate for a representative of working people to advance issues such as the minimum wage and overtime laws in trying to influence the legislature, those union fees are exempted [for a political objector]. He also pointed out that the union security clause is not imposed but is negotiated. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN strongly disagreed with the assertion that there are 10,000 dues-paying members of the Right to Work Committee in this state; he said that really goes to the credibility of everything said here earlier. He emphasized that he is referring to dues paid by members, not paid by their employers or their employers' association on their behalf. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN maintained that the National Right to Work Committee has never enlisted worker members and worker support. He reiterated that a lot of the larger support for the Right to Work Committee has come from employers and employer associations; barred by law from contributing to campaigns against their employees' unions, they go to the Right to Work Committee. The case in point here in Alaska is typical. Mr. [Tuckerman] Babcock is a management employee of Matanuska Electric, and it is well known that Matanuska Electric has a very contentious relationship with its union. He noted that just to mention Mr. Babcock and Matanuska Electric says it all about where HB 309 is coming from. COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said he is confident that a majority members on both sides of the aisle will see HB 309 for what it is, and he does not expect HB 309 to get to Governor Knowles. Unfortunately, HB 309 is another issue that drives a wedge in Alaska's family. He explained that he very rarely brings up the "V" [veto] word because he always leaves open the possibility that some compromise or some acceptable accommodation can be made on a bill; he has surprised himself on some of the things the administration has been able to work out and eventually get signed. However, he added, if HB 309 gets to Governor Knowles, it will be vetoed so fast that it will make Mr. Goodrick's head spin. TAPE 00-14, SIDE B Number 2904 DON ETHERIDGE testified that he is representing the AFL-CIO. He acknowledged that there have been many changes in labor laws over the years, and, as Commissioner Flanagan pointed out, nobody is required to join the union; however, people do have to pay the fees for service. He remarked that in the political climate of today, user fees are utilized more, and he believes they are fair. He reminded the committee that unions cannot buy political influence because the legislature passed the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) law a few years ago, which prohibits use of union dues for any political purpose whatsoever. The only dues used for political purposes are those so designated by members of the union. MR. ETHERIDGE stated that the Alaska AFL-CIO has 60,000 members. The AFL-CIO conferences are open for anyone to make comments, and they have not had one member object to paying union dues or object to being a member of the union. If anyone did have a problem with his/her local union, the local union worked out payment fees with the member and has used auditors to figure out exactly what the service fee is so that the member is not paying for anything that he/she is not receiving. MR. ETHERIDGE noted that in information that the AFL-CIO has, they found that four states have repealed right-to-work laws. The AFL-CIO also has a list of states that have placed right-to- work laws on ballot referendums so as to try to vote down those laws. He commented that right-to-work laws are not a popular subject or as good as they are reported to be. Number 2774 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for names of the four states. MR. ETHERIDGE answered that the states are Delaware, Indiana, Maine and New Hampshire. He mentioned that the referendum states are California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Washington, all of which have defeated right- to-work laws on initiatives in their ballots. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated that he was looking for factual information so as to get a better understanding. He apologized if his [request for honesty from Mr. Goodrick] was offensive because that was not his intention. Number 2710 BARBARA HUFF-TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, testified strongly against HB 309 on behalf of the 7,000 members of Teamsters Local 959 represented throughout Alaska. She read her testimony as follows: Some here today and around the state may ask, "what is right to work?" and "why would we, the people who represent workers and fight for this right, be opposed to this bill?" Let me begin at the beginning. The name itself "right to work" is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with individual rights. What this bill will do is weaken all Alaskan unions, reduce wages, and cripple labor- management relations. This is a very complicated piece of legislation, and I will briefly walk the committee through our major concerns with this bill. To do this, I would like to discuss some history. In this country, right-to-work laws [sprang] up from the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed over President Truman's veto. In President Truman's veto message, he stated: "Taft-Hartley is completely contrary to our national policy of economic freedom. It would require government to become an unwanted participant at every bargaining table." To further understand, we must look at several sections of Taft-Hartley because it is the real right-to-work culprit. Section 14(b). The authority to pass legislation that prohibits unions from negotiating contracts which require as a condition of employment membership in the union. Section 9(a) requires local unions to give equal representation to both members and nonmembers in the bargaining unit. Section 9(e)(1) provides for elections to de-authorize the union shop if 30 percent of the workers in the bargaining unit request such an election. If a majority votes against the union shop, it cannot be part of the contract. It is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that conducts these elections. Section 9(a)(1) provides for an election to decertify the union as a bargaining agent if 30 percent of the workers in the bargaining unit request such an election. If a majority votes against the union, it is no longer the bargaining representative. The NLRB conducts this election as well. Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) protects workers from discharge through union action for any reason except nonpayment of dues. A worker expelled from the union who continues to pay the equivalent of dues may not be expelled from his or her job. Section 9(c)(e) provides that in the event of an economic strike, all employees, strikers and replacements, are entitled to vote in an NLRB conducted de-authorization election. If the election is held one year after the strike started, striking employees are not permitted to vote. Section 9(d)(2). This section of Taft-Hartley was repealed in 1951 in an effort led by Senator Taft. It required government-conducted secret ballot elections among workers to approve union shop clauses where they were negotiated by the unions. I would note that during the time that this section was still applicable (4 years), there were 46,119 elections and 97.1 percent resulted in approval of the union shop provision. In Idaho in 1948, over 92 percent of the workers voted for the union security clause (Taft's state). Number 2222 Currently, the law does not require a person to be a member of a union. Congress has provided protection for religious objectors. They do not have to pay dues to a union; instead they donate an equivalent sum to a charity. An employee may choose to fulfill his/her obligation under the union security clause by opting to pay a "service fee" instead. Under the Beck's right decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the service fee concept. The Beck decision found that the employee would pay a fee related to the servicing of the collective bargaining agreement. Under the Beck decision, if the employee does not agree with the amount of the service fee, then a third party arbitrator is called in to determine the validity of the numbers. We pay for those costs. This bill, as it is written, allows for "free riders." As a union organization, we are required to provide services for all the employees in the bargaining unit. All employees benefit equally from union representation. They all receive the same wages, fringes, working conditions, seniority rights, and protection against arbitrary firing. Why shouldn't all workers share in the costs of those services? Let's talk about the opposition to union security. The National Right To Work Committee often says that the union security clause is undemocratic. In actuality, the union shop is one of the best examples of the democratic concept of majority rule. In most cases, before a union can even represent the employees of a company, a majority of those employees must vote by secret ballot in an NLRB supervised election for union representation. The majority of the employees must vote again to accept a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, which may include a union security clause. Management also must agree to negotiate such a provision in the agreement. Again, it is all conducted by majority vote. How many legislators would be willing to accept, after they were elected, a vote by the people on what issues they may or may not consider, after acting on those issues, and another vote by the people on whether they approve of what those elected officials did? Although ultimately each of you [is] faced with that each election year. What about the moral question? The National Right To Work Committee argues that morally, no individual should have to join any organization to hold a job. This freedom of choice argument espoused by the National Right to Work Committee has a great surface appeal because it involves a cherished right of Americans to freely associate with organizations of their own choosing. It should be noted that under existing federal law, an employee does not have to be a member of a union. All things considered, the union shop is morally sound. A right-to-work law bars the exercising of one of the most fundamental freedoms of a democratic nation; the freedom of contract. It prohibits an employer and a union who agree to a union security clause from placing such an agreement into a collective bargaining agreement. It clearly is government interference in our free enterprise system; government telling management and labor what they can and cannot put into a contract. In conclusion, the right-to-work laws and the arguments used to promote them are full of myths. Truly, the biggest is its name; you do not need to pass a law to give any of the employees that we represent a right to work--that is something that all of us currently enjoy. What this bill would do if passed is give all of us the right to work for less by destroying the union that our members have depended on to negotiate good wages, benefits, and protected working conditions through the collective bargaining process. I request that all the committee members vote against HB 309. Number 1881 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked how the 7,000 members of Teamsters Local 959 became members. MS. TUCKNESS answered that they signed bargaining cards. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked what new members do to become union members. MS. TUCKNESS answered that people can walk into the union hiring hall and sign up. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said [the union process] did not sound like coercion to him. He asked Ms. Tuckness if it sounded like coercion to her. MS. TUCKNESS replied that all Teamster 959 members are not necessarily referred through the hiring hall but can be hired by management and get a connection to the union at the time of hire. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted that he seldom gets angry at hearings of this nature, but to hear rhetorical misnomers such as "right to work" and "individual right" and then take it to the next step of "tyranny" and "coercion" is amazingly offensive. He related that he has worked in a right-to-work state and the [result] was a denigration of the workforce: wages were less than in other states, the workforce itself was not nearly as productive, and it was not nearly as safe. He said there is no grassroots appeal for HB 309; rather, this is an outside group working for its own benefit to come into Alaska for whatever reason. However, there is no place for HB 309 in Alaska. Number 1695 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA), said he too has lived and worked in a state that he would characterize as right-to-work, which is Arkansas. There, people had the opportunity to "collectively beg," whereas here in Alaska people have the right to "collectively bargain." There is a significant difference between the two. He understands what it is like for an employee to go to an employer, he said, but having that right carries with it many manifestations; unfortunately, the result often is "you can either take this job or you can take this condition; you have a choice, you go one way or the other." MR. MARSHALL pointed out that the great thing about collective bargaining is it levels the playing field. He mentioned that NEA-Alaska has 70 locals in 52 school districts, and has 16 locals that negotiated on union security provisions or agency fees. He indicated it is a local decision, so in those 16 districts a school employee has an opportunity to join the union, to pay a fee, or to request that an arbitration be conducted, at which time an arbiter will hear objections raised by a nonmember. He emphasized that the arbiter weighs input from a nonmember and makes a decision relative to the fee that the individual would pay as a result of the arbitration. He acknowledged that nonmembers do challenge fees calculated by the local union, the state union, NEA-Alaska and the National Education Association. MR. MARSHALL reminded the committee that the nonmember has an opportunity to choose religious objection and can simply pay a fee instead of union dues; the fee is paid to the union and then the union passes the fee on to a charity of the nonmember's choice as prescribed by state law. He observed that NEA-Alaska has approximately 40 districts with no fee; even in those districts, NEA-Alaska has the right to bargain for the employees in that district. Fee payers demand representation and salary increases, and they receive benefits that are bargained through the collective bargaining process. He does not know of one fee payer who gave back his/her salary increase [that was] bargained by a local union. MR. MARSHALL noted that NEA-Alaska has the responsibility to maintain that agreement. If a grievance is brought relative to a fee payer or a nonmember, NEA-Alaska feels it has a responsibility to represent that member. Of course, there are costs associated with collective bargaining, with grievance processing, and the administration of the union as it relates to bargaining and grievance administration. Those costs are what the objector pays for, but an objector does not pay for membership campaigns or lobbying. He mentioned that a fee payer does not pay one penny relative to political action. MR. MARSHALL indicated he takes offense that Mr. Goodrick said "you either pay dues or you don't work." Mr. Marshall informed the committee that is not the case with NEA-Alaska, saying he cannot name one person who has lost a job relative to failure to pay dues. Yes, he remarked, NEA-Alaska does make an effort to collect dues, and they refer a person to collections if they fail to pay fees. Number 1254 MR. MARSHALL referred to Mr. Goodrick's admonishment to "go forward and recruit." He cautioned that HB 309 is fraught with potential problems for any membership chairperson in a teacher or school employee organization, or even the membership person himself. He directed attention to page 3(l) of HB 309 and quoted: "compel or attempt to compel by means of a threat, intimidation, or ... coercion an employee to join, affiliate ..., or financially support a labor organization or to refrain from doing so ...." He noted that page 3, line 10, says such action is a class B misdemeanor, and page 3, line 14, says that any violator would have to pay "injunctive relief, damages, or both." Mr. Marshall said it is not a large leap here to have a nonmember simply say "you threatened me" or "you coerced me" just through the act of asking. Therefore, although Mr. Goodrick says "go forward and recruit," there is a crafty little clause in HB 309 that, if it does become law, would make it very difficult to even recruit. MR. MARSHALL said he grew up in a right-to-work state where state teachers received the lowest compensation in the country. Furthermore, Arkansas had the lowest per capita income. He commented that it is refreshing to come to a state where there is some value placed on wages, income and quality of life because, in effect, that is the subject under discussion. He urged the committee to protect Alaska from the "collective begging" experience suffered by many states. DARRYL TSEU, Regional Director, Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, said he had read U.S.A. Today a couple of weeks ago, and it did portray figures that Mr. Goodrick had mentioned in regard to salary and pay. He noted that Mr. Goodrick had mentioned that in right-to-work states there was a huge amount of increase in income, but Mr. Tseu thinks that is a little flawed. Mr. Tseu reminded the committee that statistics can be bent any way one chooses. He commented that the article said that people who made at least $60,000-$100,000 a year experienced an increase in salary over the last 15 years of about 15-20 percent. On the other hand, people who had an average income of $25,000-$30,000 a year experienced an increase of only about 3 percent. The majority of employees in this state are working-class people making the average $30,000 a year, and their wages have not increased substantially, as Mr. Goodrick would like to suggest. He emphasized that working-class people anywhere, in any state including right-to-work states, have not experienced a substantial increase in their wages. Number 0927 HEIDI KELLEY testified via teleconference from Eagle River and read her testimony as follows: My name is Heidi Kelley. I am a lifelong registered Democrat. I have been in the workforce for the last 26 years, serving the last 12 years as both an administrative manager and as a human resources professional. My professional and community involvement includes membership in the Anchorage Society of Human Resource Management, where I currently serve on the board as the Community Service Chair and also actively participate in the Alaska Grassroots program. I am currently employed as a human resources representative at Matanuska Electric Association in Palmer, Alaska. I am here today to present my individual viewpoint regarding proposed HB 309, a right-to-work bill. I base my viewpoint upon what I have seen first hand in my significant experience as a recruiter and interviewer. I see HB 309 as supporting the rights of individuals to maintain their freedom of choice. Current law does not provide for that freedom of choice. I frequently hear comments from employees about how unfair it is to force a certain person to "have to belong" to a union. While the original intent of our current laws was to prohibit management coercion against employees desiring to join a union shop, the pendulum has swung the other way, and there is not a system of checks and balances in our system. Union shops are just as much a business as any company in the United States, and laws which promote and continue this imbalance of power in favor of organized labor harm the country as a whole, and create increased costs to the consumer. The United States Constitution guarantees citizens freedom of choice, but Alaska state labor laws regarding union shops do not support those individual rights. House Bill 309 does not take away the rights of employees to organize or to seek agency representation, and I would not support an act to do so. My role as a human resources professional is two fold: I represent management policies for any company with which I am employed, but I also am responsible for assuring that employees are treated fairly and in accordance with state and federal regulations. Passing HB 309 shows that you as a representative of Alaska care about the individual rights of employees throughout the state. I ask that you pass HB 309 to promote the best interests of your constituency. MS. KELLEY mentioned that there are many things she is privy to that individuals are not willing to testify to, in a state that is so pro-union. She observed that things that happen behind the scenes are not always fair to individuals. Number 0639 BOB CONGDON, President, Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to HB 309. He said there are a dozen other people in the room with him all opposed to HB 309. In response to Mr. Goodrick, Mr. Congdon said that in the Ketchikan paper on March 1, 2000, an article appeared written by the National Right To Work Committee. In that article, many examples were given of the "median" income level in a state being higher with self- characterized right-to-work laws than in union states. However, the median level is not the mean; it is the middle, and the middle can be five if there is just a single high of ten and a million low ones. MR. CONGDON commented that he had looked at this issue from the perspective of a businessman. If he were to relocate his business to Alaska, he would want to be sure that his employees were not forced to pay union dues. He indicated he would rather deal with one union than a bunch of individuals; he would want to ensure that each individual paid his/her fair share for union representation but nothing more. He also would want to ensure that in the rare circumstance that someone chose not to associate with a union, that employee would be allowed that freedom, but not at the expense of his/her colleagues. He acknowledged that the nonmember should be treated the same way and have to contribute to the improvement of working conditions just like everyone else. The nonmember should be allowed to require that his/her payment to the union be redirected to a charity if his/her conscience so dictated. Mr. Congdon added that as a businessman he would want to ensure that any union dues collected were audited to make sure that they were not being used for ideological or political purposes. He wants to support the current law in Alaska and not replace it with HB 309. Number 0306 DON VELASKO testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he resents an outsider coming up here and telling Alaska how to do its [governing]. He suggested Mr. Goodrick's testimony was misleading in some areas. For example, not one right-to-work- for-less state has its average wage level above the national average. He offered to supply that information to committee members. He said [workers in] right-to-work-for-less states make an average of $4,343 less per year than workers in right-to-live- in-dignity states. He mentioned that of the 20 right-to-work states, 11 made that decision in 1947, and only 2 made that decision after 1959: Idaho (1986) and Louisiana (1976). He emphasized that the Idaho's standard of living has dropped since passage of its law in 1986. MR. VELASKO remarked that he wanted to provide an example of democracy. He reminded the committee that in 1959 citizens of Alaska voted to become a state. He observed that union members vote to form or join a union. Just as citizens elect representatives and the state administrator, union members elect representatives and administrators. And just as citizens allow elected representatives to pass laws and add taxes, usually by vote of the citizens, so must union workers vote on any dues that they must pay. He asked what would happen if corporations and citizens by law had the right not to pay taxes, for example, which would lead to utter chaos in the state, and yet the state would have to provide all services such as roads, police protection, correctional facilities and so forth. Sooner or later, no citizen or corporation would pay taxes. He asked, "Would you folks consider passing a law to do that?" TAPE 00-15, SIDE A Number 0045 DAVID FORD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The business manager for the Ironworker's Local, he is originally from Michigan, which is not a right-to-work state. He noted that he came to work on the pipeline and worked alongside many individuals from southern right-to-work states who had told him horror stories about the decline of the standard of living in their states after enacting right-to-work laws. The individuals he had worked with - who were from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia and Florida - had come to Alaska and stayed because of the higher standard of living and wages here. He emphasized that the term "right to work" is not about individual rights at all but is a direct attack on workers, their rights, their wages and their unions. Number 0206 MR. FORD noted that studies by the University of Utah indicate the standard of living in those [right-to-work] states decreased approximately 20 percent after enacting right-to-work laws. Alaska has a high cost of living, and a 20 percent reduction in spending for workers would have a devastating effect on the economy. He offered to provide a copy of the Utah University study. Mr. Ford said workers understand it is fair and democratic for all employees to pay their fair share of the cost associated with negotiating agreements and providing services to those that belong to the union. Workers' rights are not the issue in right-to-work legislation. He asked the committee to disregard HB 309 so as not to lower Alaskan standard of living. Number 0241 WILLIE ANDERSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he represents classroom teachers and school employees. He noted that his organization has a method to provide an opportunity for people to object to dues and the fee structure. Unlike state employees, his organization has no mandatory agency fee clause in the contract; rather, it is left up to choice by every local affiliate. Nevertheless, his organization must represent every person in the organization, whether that person pays the agency fee or not. Therefore, there are people in his organization who do not pay a dime for representation. He remarked that every person in the organization has an opportunity to review audited records and then elect whether to pay the agency fee. A person who objects to the agency fee can request arbitration, and the union would pay the total cost of that arbitration process. Mr. Anderson said HB 309 is not necessary and would only impact state and municipal employees in Alaska. He urged the committee to vote against HB 309 and not allow it to move out of committee. Number 0543 WALLY STUART testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he has worked in the retail grocery industry and has been elected president of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1496, which represents the majority of grocery workers, pharmacy workers, and some furniture stores, hardware stores and sporting goods stores. He noted that obviously he represents many workers who come into the industry as first- timers. Therefore, his organization sponsors educational new- membership meetings and sends out literature about what the union is doing for its membership. He emphasized that HB 309 is a great disservice to Alaskans, particularly the workers. Number 0756 HARRY CRAWFORD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. An ironworker, he originally came from Louisiana, the only state that has had a right-to-work law twice. He noted that Louisiana had repealed the right-to-work law once, and a number of years later a huge effort on the part of "big business" and a deal with Edwin Edwards brought it back a second time. He was unfortunate enough to see the effects of the right-to-work law in that it denigrated wages and working conditions, and per capita wages dropped like a rock. He asked the committee to imagine one of the fifty states saying, "I still want to have the benefits of protection and benefits that the United States provides, but I'm not going to pay taxes to the federal government anymore because I have a philosophic difference about how the country stands." He emphasized that it is a terrible thing to do. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked whether the right-to-work law [in Louisiana] just affected union wages or tended drive down all wages in the state. Number 0894 MR. CRAWFORD said it affected everyone's wages and working conditions in the state. Union membership dropped by half, resulting in lower wages for all workers, whether they belonged to a union or not. JOHN BROWN, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He thanked Representative Hudson for asking who is pushing this. For the answer, he suggested looking to the National Right To Work Committee, which was started in 1954 as a persistent group of business people and which continues to be run by business people. If their source of money could be discovered - which he has tried in vain to do - he believes it still comes from business and is still represented by business from Virginia. He urged the committee to oppose HB 309 as being bad for Alaska. Number 1098 ANDREW HODNIK, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he does not want to see Local 302 or any fellow unions undermined by HB 309. He was not coerced to be in the union when he joined a few years ago. Furthermore, when he had worked non-union, he did not have insurance; now, thanks to union benefits, he does have insurance for himself and his son. He also likes the training provided to advance his career at the union training school in Palmer. He does not want to lose any of these benefits to make Alaska a right-to-work state, and he does not want to pay for a non-union employee to have the same benefits that he shares with his brothers and sisters in the union. Asking who decides if workers will be represented by a union, he answered that the individual worker does. He reiterated that he does not want Alaska to be another right-to-work state. Number 1179 JOHN JOHNSON, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he was offended by Mr. Goodrick's comments that unions send puppets to Congress and have a low opinion of their own workforce. He noted that there are very skilled people in the union workforce, and the big contractors depend on skilled people to supply the workforce when it is needed. He acknowledged that in Alaska union wages are high and fairly good. However, many people do not realize that if union workers were not here and did not have [high] wages, many businesses would not thrive as they do today. Also, many non-union people would not be receiving the wages they do. He concluded that HB 309 is a bad bill and should be voted down, period. Number 1298 DAN RAUTIO, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He is offended by HB 309, he said, and thinks "the right to work for less" is a good name. He commented that when states vote for right to work, employees get one right - the right to quit - and management can shove anything it wants down the employees' throats. Number 1352 ROBERT HUBLER, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, saying he does not support HB 309. He has received many benefits from the union, such as training, a good retirement to look forward to and good health benefits. He explained that he had stood in line for five months to get into the union. He expressed hope that the committee would support unions in Alaska and allow union workers to receive a good wage. Number 1395 CLAUDE STANLEY, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said he wanted to see the names and numbers of all those people that Mr. Goodrick had said support HB 309 because obviously those people had never worked for a living. He noted that a person who pursues a good union job gets a handsome return for the effort. Number 1441 STEVEN JOSWIAK, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1496, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said HB 309 is a bad bill. He has worked in the union process for a long time, and the standard of living in Alaska is maintained because of the existing laws. He concluded that HB 309 would decimate the standard of living in Fairbanks and in Alaska. Number 1514 FRED KUYKENDALL, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Referring to Mr. Goodrick's assertion that HB 309 is about stopping the unions from requiring people to join unions, Mr. Kuykendall said no one requires anyone to join a union; rather, people join unions of their own accord. He explained that the union has been good [for him]; therefore, the state does not have to support him because of the union program. If he lived in a right-to-work state, eventually he would be dependent on the state to support him. He quoted from George Orwell's book 1984: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." He asked who supports Mr. Goodrick and where the money comes from. Number 1597 MILT BEAR, District Representative, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to HB 309, which he does not think is a fair bill. He observed that the union is required to represent employees and the employees are not required to pay any fees under HB 309. A union member for 30 years, he considers it a privilege to pay dues. MR. DAUGHERTY suggested reflecting upon Alaska history, which he assumes the gentleman from Virginia is not familiar with. He noted that the Alaska constitutional convention - held in College, Alaska, in 1956 - had an outsider group come up and promote putting the right-to-work language into the Alaska State Constitution. He explained that our Alaskan forefathers voted 40 to 4 against right-to-work language, as reflected in the constitutional convention minutes. He concluded that if those people - who have guided Alaskans from the '50s forward - felt that it was bad public policy to put right-to-work language in the Alaska State Constitution, then people of today ought to respect their wisdom and consider the reasons. MR. DAUGHERTY noted that history helps in understanding why there is such strong cooperation between labor and management in Alaska today. For example, Nome newspapers circa 1900 indicated Nome had strong unions that assisted workers. Mr. Daugherty cited the oil industry as a good example of cooperation between labor and management. He mentioned that Alaska has good employers such as ARCO, British Petroleum (BP), and Alyeska, who do cooperate with trade union collective bargaining agreements that provide union security. He remarked that if those businessmen appreciate the right of union security, he does not know why Alaskans need to hear from the Beltway regarding a different way. Number 1890 MR. GOODRICK responded. He suggested that hearing that all of the reforms and window dressing were put in place by union representatives and organized labor officials to ameliorate the problem of freedom of association is like hearing the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) take credit for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He added that unions have fought every organized labor reform all the way, and now they take credit for these solutions to the problem. For example, unions fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court against allowing any reduction from full dues down to the core amount, and lost the court cases. MR. GOODRICK said he is hearing contradictions. Unions say that no one is forced to pay union dues, and then another union group says that if unions are stopped from forcing people to pay dues, it will completely destroy Alaska labor unions. If there is no problem, then simply enacting HB 309 would mean no change. However, if union membership and fundraising ability is based upon unions' ability to coerce people to pay, then unions should lose those members. Number 1992 MR. GOODRICK discussed the process for the individual who is applying for a job or who works for a recently unionized company. When applying for the job, he/she is informed of the need to become a union member to even get the job. If the new employee does not accept that statement at face value, the new employee will ask for a copy of the contract, which will have written into it "pay full member dues." However, it will not mention one word about paying only the "core amount." Recently, the National Right To Work Committee had taken a case to court, and the court ruled that those clauses were strictly illegal as written but would not say that it is illegal to continue to write them in the contract. As a result, the non-attorney new employee applying for the job looks at the contract, which clearly says that he/she needs to pay dues. Now, assuming the new employee is a particularly independent person and asks more questions, finally the secret gets out that he/she is allowed to pay something less than the full amount and can get part of his/her money back. Consequently, the new employee has to go to court, find and pay for a lawyer, and litigate the U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision, which unions claim is a solution to the freedom problem. He observed that Mr. Beck, a lineman worker for CWA, waited 12 years to win a court decision regarding whether he had to pay for union services that he did not want. MR. GOODRICK illustrated the reality of federal labor policy as follows: Suppose a committee member walked downstairs and hopped into a cab, mistakenly getting into a cab with the NEA-Alaska union official and the labor commissioner. All of a sudden, the union and labor officials say, "We're going to have a vote of where we're going to go. It's two to one, you're outvoted, and we're going to Anchorage." Then they take the committee member all the way to Anchorage even though he didn't want to go, kick him out of the car, take his wallet and say they were taking $500 for the cab fee. "Remember," they say, "majority rules here, and you owe us the money because you went to Anchorage." MR. GOODRICK reminded the committee that under federal labor policy an individual worker is required to accept the representation whether he/she wants it or not. It is illegal for an employee who does not agree with the union contract to go straight to the employer and speak for him/herself; it is illegal because union officials asked for that individual right to be banned under federal law. He observed that the term used to obtain the ban was "exclusive representation," but the National Right To Work Committee calls it "monopoly representation." The point is that the National Right To Work Committee has repeatedly offered to endorse legislation along with the AFL-CIO to remove that so-called burden of representation from organized labor's shoulders. Unions have opposed any such move to restrict union authority over nonmembers, and then have turned around and proclaimed that they should be able to charge nonmembers for representation that unions insisted on exerting in the first place. Number 2185 MR. GOODRICK reiterated that 83 percent of union contracts in the private sector today contain forced-dues clauses, and that is the number one demand of organized labor when they go to the bargaining table the first time out. Organized labor will trade high wages, higher benefits and whatever they have in order to get, first and foremost, the union security clause that requires everyone to pay. MR. GOODRICK disagreed that Florida, a right-to-work state where he grew up, is economically worse today than 30 years ago. He offered his opinion that Florida is in better condition today, as are most other right-to-work states. He indicated right-to-work states have prospered dramatically since enacting their laws, compared to unionized states over the last 30 years. The numbers he has been talking about are from the Bureau of National Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, and he has drawn from AFL- CIO's own study that compared wages in right-to-work states with wages in union states. MR. GOODRICK asked if it would be legal for a school teacher in Alaska to negotiate directly with a school district, reject representation by the union and reject union wages; the answer is no, he said, because of the system established by organized labor in the first place to make organized labor the sole way to seek justice and pay for the privilege. He asserted that those are the facts. Number 2343 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is concerned about the repeated wage discrepancy. He asked Mr. Goodrick if the committee could find unbiased, truthful figures from the Bureau of National Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor. MR. GOODRICK answered in the affirmative. He reminded the committee that what matters to an employee is net pay, not gross pay. Therefore, when the committee runs its figures they should consider union dues, taxes and cost-of-living differentials in arriving at a true net pay figure for an employee. He maintained that right-to-work state employees have more discretionary income to spend on what they choose than union state employees have. Number 2393 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he had worked non-union jobs for 25 years in most of the states described as right-to-work. He explained that he works as a longshoreman on the dock in Anchorage in what is called "the gatehouse," and truck drivers go there. Union companies there pay $18 an hour, with benefits and retirement; on the other hand, there are also non-union companies there that pay $12 an hour, with few or no benefits and no retirement. In the 20 years he has worked there, the union company has had one driver; the non-union company has had at least 40 drivers on its truck. He indicated that Mr. Goodrick had visited people like Tuckerman Babcock whose goal was to tear down labor, in Mr. Sanders' opinion. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN closed testimony on HB 309, which was held for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|