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.