Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/02/2000 01:40 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 230-RIGHT TO WORK
CHAIRMAN MACKIE announced SB 230 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, sponsor, introduced Stephen Goodrick, National
Right to Work Committee, the premier spokesman on the subject.
MR. STEPHEN GOODRICK, Vice President, National Right to Work
Committee, said they are an organization made up of 2 million
members and supporters across the country who are united in the
belief that it is wrong to compel any worker to pay union dues or
to join a union as a condition of employment. It's the only thing
they are about, but they feel very strongly about it.
Number 1070
MR. GOODRICK said his job is to monitor legislation across the
country. They became aware of Alaska through their membership here
and members of the legislature that there was an effort to seek
enactment or introduction of the State Right to Work bill.
He addressed the question brought up by the Commissioner of the
Department of Labor as to whether they have 5,000 - 10,000 members
in Alaska; the exact count is 5,920. He said that 80% of the
American public think it is wrong to require a worker to pay union
dues or fees as a condition of employment. He would be surprised
if a majority of Alaskans don't agree with the national opinion on
that question. He commended Representative Kohring and Senator
Green for taking the very first step towards freeing Alaskan
workers from the tyranny of compulsory unionism.
SB 230 is simple even though a lot of union officials wanted to
make it seem very complicated. It makes it illegal to force
workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. It does
nothing to diminish the right of an individual worker to join and
participate in a labor union. Those rights are protected under
federal law and they wouldn't support anything contrary to that.
He asked what could be more basic or more fair than letting
individual workers decide for themselves what groups are worthy of
their support and patronage. Unfortunately, in Alaska today,
thousands of working men and women have no such choice. The
message to these independent minded workers is unmistakable. Join
the union and pay the union dues or don't work here.
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 rights without
harassment or interfering. Passing "right to work" would let
Alaska's workers say to their union officials "Persuade me;
convince me; don't force me."
Unions operate the same in right to work states as they do in
enforced unionism states like Alaska. Under the right to work law,
the only thing that changes is that union officials can no longer
negotiate with an employer for a union security clause, a contract
that forces all the workers to pay union dues whether they wish to
or not.
"Despite misinformation from union officials, right to work has no
real affect on nominal wages." According to the Union Membership
and Earnings Data 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 nonright to
work states. In fact, right to work is a little tiny bit ahead.
Alaska's failure to pass a right to work clause costs far above the
injustice to individual workers. Every Alaskan pays the price in
lost jobs, higher taxes, and a lower standard of living. It hurt
consumers, it hurts taxpayers, and hurts workers.
The AFL/CIO's own numbers show that right to work states have
higher real income. Their information comes from the U.S.
Department of Labor data and does not adjust for anything.
Number 1395
But if you adjust for the cost of living, the benefits of right to
work becomes clear. The average of hourly earnings in
manufacturing industries in right to work states are 8% higher than
they are in nonright to work states. Average earnings in
manufacturing are 7.6% higher in right to work states than in
nonright to work states. Average per capita personal income is
$1,100 higher in right to work states than in compulsory union
states. The average annual pay overall is $900 higher in right to
work states than it is in compulsory union states.
These numbers confirm the right to work advantage reported by Nobel
Prize winning economist, James Bennet, at George Mason University.
The gap is even wider as a result of adjusting for state
differences in taxation. A quote from Dr. Bennet's report, A
Higher Standard of Living in Right to Work States, says that a
typical urban family in a right to work state has $2,852 more
after-tax purchasing power than the very same family would have in
a nonright to work state. He shows that much of the reason
families are so much better off in right to work states is that
they pay 25 percent more for food, housing, health care, utilities,
property taxes, and college tuition than families in enforced union
states. What matters to workers is not how much they earn, but how
much of it they get to keep and spend. Right to work does better
in every category when you look at it that way.
Since 1980, per capita income in right to work states by 11% more
than in nonright to work states. Total economic growth in right to
work states has out paced nonright to work states by 25% since 1991
and is projected to continue at the same pace to 9% by 2001
according the Financial World Magazine.
The importance which business attributes to a state's policy
encouraging cooperative and voluntary relations between labor and
management has been very clear for many years. According to Ann
Elizabeth Morris, President and Chief Economist of the Insight
Research Corporation, one of the leading dominant competitors in
corporate relocation research, says "Ninety percent of companies
use forced collective bargaining as a first kick-out criteria and
choose to locate in only right to work states when their overall
operating requirements give them any latitude on this issue." He
said that Alaska is cutting itself off at the knees at the
beginning by continuing to allow the forced union policy to remain
in place, because it keeps out nine out of 10 companies that might
come to Alaska and hire people and pay taxes. The results of this
thinking can be very 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 very same period, forced union
states lost about 1.4 million jobs. The fact is that the
prosperity the nation has encountered and enjoyed over the last 20
years has been produced by the workers and employers in the right
to work states. If you cut the country in half and made half of it
compulsory unionism and the other half right to work, you would see
the nonright to work half in a severe economic recession and severe
decrease in job creation; and you would have seen a tremendous
growth rate in right to work America. The evidence is clear that
employee freedom and prosperity go hand in hand.
This is where right to work differs with organized labor's
officials. They have a higher belief and trust in the intelligence
of American workers to make these decisions on their own behalf.
They will not be hurt by being allowed to choose for themselves
what to do with their own money.
The case in Alaska is compelling from any legitimate perspective.
Is it right to ask a person who voted against union representation
in the first place to pay or be fired. Political; is it the right
thing to allow forced union dues to be spent by organized labor in
direct contravention of the beliefs and view of their own members
in supporting political candidates who are out of touch with the
working man in America. Or is it smart economically? No it's not;
but union officials want to keep coercing union dues from unwilling
workers and they will do or say anything to keep their money
rolling into their coffers and right into their wallets out of
Alaska workers' paychecks.
By fighting against right to work, union officials are telling you
that this is union busting legislation. That the only way they can
stay in business is by forcing their members to pay dues. This is
a damming admission. If their power is based on the ability to
force or coerce workers to pay, that's an illegitimate power and it
should be removed.
Right to work supporters know that when workers see a union truly
representing them, they won't need to be compelled by government
guidance to pay tribute. They will gladly join on their own if
they see it's in their self interest. A good labor union has no
need for compulsory systems of membership recruitment to attract
their members. A bad union doesn't deserve to continue to have
that power. In the interests in the rights of working men and
women of Alaska, he urged them to support HB 309 and SB 230.
Number 1700
CHAIRMAN MACKIE recapped that he said 80% of Americans oppose
mandatory dues and union membership and asked him to expand on
that.
MR. GOODRICK responded that the numbers had gone up over the last
20 years. It's always been a solid majority. This idea of
requiring workers to pay union dues has been a foreign concept to
American workers. It has gone up a couple of points in the fall of
every decade. The latest poll they have is 78%. The question is
asked: "Do you think that a worker should be required to pay union
dues or fees in order to get or keep a job."
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said how many states right now have right to work
laws such as proposed in this legislation.
MR. GOODRICK answered 21.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if it was correct that 21 states have no
requirement to pay union dues or join a union for employment.
MR. GOODRICK said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked what some of them were.
MR. GOODRICK answered geographically it was almost all of the south
and most of the west.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked him to name some of the western states.
MR. GOODRICK replied Kansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama...
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said he asked for the west.
MR. GOODRICK replied Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, one or
two of the Dakotas.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if any federal laws were in conflict with
this legislation.
MR. GOODRICK responded that the history is very interesting. It
all goes back to 1936 when FDR paid off organized labor for their
support in his presidential campaign by enacting the National Labor
Relations Act (Wagner Act). It made a blanket national policy that
workers should be required to pay union dues as a condition of
employment in a union shop. That was very unpopular. It caused a
tremendous backlash which is one of the things that lead to the
brief Republican take-over of Congress under President Truman.
Instead of just repealing it like they should have, they simply
said this is so unpopular we are going to make an exception. If a
state legislature will jump through the hoop of passing a state
right to work law, they would allow them to be shielded against
that federal policy. Unless the legislature is able to overcome
the $14 billion empire of organized labor and pass a law like this,
it's the federal law. This is the only area in the private sector
a state legislature will be able to do much about union or labor
policy. Everything else would be superseded by federal law.
The other solution to this problem of the burden of representation
used by organized labor officials to justify compulsory payment of
these dues is to either let the workers decide whether or not to
pay themselves or remove from organized labor any compulsion to
represent them. Either one of them would be fair solutions, but of
course they are opposed to any restrictions on their power and
authority. They demanded the right to be the only exclusive
representative of the workers to their employers and they turn
around and use that privilege and one wrong plus another wrong to
make another wrong doesn't give them the right to force people to
pay for representation that they demanded in the first place.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE pointed out that there was an opposing view and
that would be presented at the next meeting.
Number 1908
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if in the statistics in the right to work
states with agricultural jobs, it shows that Nevada has a markedly
larger percentage increase than other states (72%) and he asked why
that is.
MR. GOODRICK answered that Nevada is a right to work state and he
didn't know if they could attribute the entire jump to passage of
that law.
SENATOR LEMAN asked again what states are right to work states.
MR. GOODRICK replied mostly the south and the west.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE said the west is California, Oregon...
MR. GOODRICK said he thought the west was everything west of the
Mississippi - Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, North and
South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Kansas.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that those were all way south and way Midwest
and east of us.
SENATOR KELLY asked what was the last state to go right to work.
MR. GOODRICK answered in 1982 Idaho enacted their right to work law
by a three quarters majority over the governor's veto. In 1986
organized labor challenged that law through a referendum; even
though his organization started out 25 points ahead in the poll at
the beginning, they won narrowly with 53% after organized labor
spent an estimated $6 per registered voter on that referendum.
SENATOR KELLY asked when was the last big state wide fight over
this issue throughout the nation.
MR. GOODRICK said they have lost a lot of fights since then. It is
very close to passage in New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Colorado,
Montana, and New Mexico.
SENATOR KELLY asked if he was talking about within the legislature
or in the public arena through an initiative or referendum.
MR. GOODRICK said he was strictly speaking of the legislative
process. There hadn't been a referendum since 1986 which is the
one they won in Idaho. There are other labor related proposals
that look and smell like right to work, but are not, that have been
on the ballot, such as the California initiative to restrict the
use of forced dues for politics.
SENATOR KELLY asked if that passed.
MR. GOODRICK said that did not. It was a flawed proposal in the
first place.
Number 2022
SENATOR LEMAN said it was hard to argue against someone having the
right to work without being forced t join anything. Yet he gets
messages saying this is more than what it purports to be - a hidden
agenda.
MR. GOODRICK said that's how it comes off in every state. The lies
range from the outrageous to the absurd. There was a rumor that
they started "clan" activity in Idaho.
SENATOR LEMAN said he was going to ask the same question of the
people on the other side of the issue.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what other states were considering this
legislation actively today.
MR. GOODRICK answered depending on various levels of active (he
would say the Alaska legislature is not actively considering it),
states like Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Montana.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if the issue was being placed before the
voters in those states.
MR. GOODRICK responded that it was in the legislature. On the east
coast in a lot of states there is no referendum or initiative
process.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE thanked Mr. Goodrick for his testimony and said
they would hear the other side of the issue on Tuesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|