Labor

Indiana About to Become the 23rd State in the Country to Embrace Right-to-Work

|

After weeks of tantrums and hissy fits by Democrats, the Republican-controlled Indiana House last night passed, 54-44, a right-to-work bill that will make it illegal for unions to collect mandatory dues from non-members, a big blow to the ability of unions to collect funds and sway elections.  Governor Mitch Daniels, who wasn't an enthusiast of the bill going in, has nevertheless pledged to sign it after the Senate, which is also in Republican hands, passes it next week.

Indiana will become the 23rd state in the country—and the first in the Rust Belt—to embrace such a law, something that has huge implications for the future of unions in the Midwest. Wisconsin and Ohio have already scrapped the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions, and Indiana's move has made a frontal assault on the power of private sector unions in the region, which is why unions and their Democratic allies are livid.

They tried to do everything in their power to stall the Indiana bill—including refusing to show up for legislative debate without which a vote could not be held. But when that tactic fizzled, they made one final stand last night, taking to the floor of the House to condemn the bill.

Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson accused Republicans of trying to destroy her union-heavy community, demanding to know what Republicans from agricultural districts would do if she came into their communities and said "'no more cows' and 'no more pigs'?"

No word yet on how the UAW feels about having its members compared to "cow" and "pigs."

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that if the record of other right-to-work states is any evidence, this bill, which Gov. Daniels is expected to sign by Feb. 5, will give Indiana's economy a real competitive edge over other Midwestern states, forcing them to consider similar bills. For example, as I noted some months ago, there is a credible effort afoot to make Michigan a right-to-work state, something unthinkable even five years ago given the near-complete chokehold of unions on this state for over half a century.

Democrats and unions complain that the bill will destroy working-class jobs and wages. But the truth is that, between 2000 and 2010, employment in right-to-work-states increased 2.3 percent and dropped 4 percent in non-right-to-work states. Likewise, personal income grew 57.5 percent in right-to-work-states compared to 40.5 percent in non-right-to-work states.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ron Paul Polling Last in Florida, Bob Dole Slaps Newt, Twitter to Censor Tweets: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Crap I’m in IL. I wonder how the commute would be from IN

    1. IN residents (as well as other out of state residents) with CCW permits can also drive with handguns accessible in IL, thanks to a surprise court decision.

  2. Indiana will become the 23rd state in the country?and the first in the nation?to embrace such a law…

    I am confused.

        1. Ah! Now I can go back to my normal background levels of confusion.

    1. It makes sense if you read it in the context of other states making laws and then ignoring them.

    2. I would like us all to embrace a law which doesn’t allow the use of phrases like: “embrace a law”

  3. Indiana will become the 23rd state in the country ? and the first in the nation ? to embrace such a law…

    Wait a minute, what?

  4. Indiana will become the 23rd state in the country?and the first in the nation?to embrace such a law, something that has huge implications for the future of unions in the Midwest.

    What am I missing here?

    1. Copy editing?

  5. No word yet on how the UAW feels about having its members compared to “cow” and “pigs.”

    We feel it is manifestly unjust to compare our membership to animals that actually provide value to consumers.

  6. What are ROT states and who is Mitch Daniel?

    1. Sorry folks, accidentally hit the submit button instead of the preview button before this was proof-read for prime time!

      1. If Michigan manages to adopt a similar right-to-work law, I’ll start believing in unicorns and solar panels. Seriously.

        Dare I dream? Dare I venture so far? A… REVITALIZED Detroit within a few decades?

        1. I find your commentary fascinating!
          Will you be here all week month year?

          1. Wow, you made your handle part of the joke. And the cross out thing, did you think that up?

            Fucking baby raper.

            1. you made your handle part of the joke

              !

              1. Hey, every minute that your on here is a minute that you aren’t out trawling America’s playgrounds for fresh meat.

                So keep posting, cunt.

                1. The Big Ignore starts today!

                  1. Awww, you gonna cry? Is your chin doing that wrinkly thing again you old cunt?

                    “I’ll ignore that meany capitol l, he can’t hurt me. More like capitol smell! HAHA, I’ll have to make that my next handle!”

                    1. Email me for “capitol l’s” real identity.

                      Secret password: “cunt”

                      Oops!

                    2. Now your spoofing, how original. Is it hard to type from behind all of those tears?

                      I know how terrible it is when nobody likes you (actually I don’t but I’m trying to be charitable here), but if you keep acting like you do you’ll never have any friends.

                      Now post again, doggie.

    2. all, the, BITCHES WANA GET UP ON MAH TIP, UP ON MAH TIP, UP ON MAH TIP

      i dont ask i proceed 2 grab cuz the chix luv mah g’d-up swagger!

  7. Hey now, hey now, slow down, we said that everybody has a right to a job. Nobody said anything about a right to work.

  8. Indiana has the most idiotic toll booths in the nation.

    But if you need fake gold dollars…

    1. What? Where? The tollbooths on I-90 are extremely normal.

  9. Indiana will become the 23rd state in the country ? and the first in the nation ? to embrace such a law…

    WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. THIS!?????

    Why hasn’t anyone noticed this fucking shit? Are you people fucking stoopid? Can you guys even read?

    This will NOT stand, there will be consequences! Dire conse-fucking-quences!!!!

    AAAARRRRGHHHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. God, you’re dumb.

      1. Whoosh!

    2. capitol l: You are so 20-minutes ago, when this was fixed! Hellow…can u save your wrath for something that actually deserves it. Move on, man!

  10. Whoosh!

    1. Keep hiding, cunt.

      1. The Big Ignore starts today!

        1. Try it, cunt.

        2. capitol l likes to write “cunt.”

          Does he get a little boner when he does it?

          Discuss.

          1. Just a word like any other, cunt.

            Sometimes a word’s usage is so apt that there’s no sin in repetition.

            Now change your handle again and make another new friend for yourself.

            1. I lead you by the nose.
              Keep writing. It’s hilarious!

            2. Give it up, cap l. She’s an insane, unemployed, fat loser and she’s desperate to get her licks in before registration.

              Oh, and she’ll switch over to The Big Ignore after this and whine because I won’t respond to her. The biggest sin anyone is capable of… ignoring her just like her dad did before he finally killed himself.

              1. Hahahaha!
                Oh SugarFree, why can’t you quit me?

                1. (Email me for secret information!)

                  1. Is this rather, too? I personally have never really understood your posts, or your blog. But the handle-hopping, and volume of posts is getting kinda’ weird. I get you’re trying to be funny and annoying, but this is a little too far “out there”. Dial it back, if you can.

                    1. Nope, not “rather,” just a bored freelancer, looking for kicks. And such fertile territory! It’s like handing cigarettes and whiskey to adolescents! I almost feel guilty, but hey, isn’t this the narcissistic nirvana? The goal of all goals? Casting cheap bait and reeling in suckers?

                    2. This is how you get kicks? Wow, how terribly lame of you.

                      It’s good that you can admit to such a worthless existence. I now understand your hiding behind spoofs.

                    3. This is how you get kicks?

                      Fetch! There’s a good boy!
                      Keep ignoring me!

                      Oh, but you can’t!
                      Hahahaha!

                    4. You’re really fucked, aren’t you?

                      You’re actually serious about this.

                      Holy shit.

                      I was just messin’ around a bit. I’m sorry, but I just didn’t know how important all this was to you.

                  2. There’s a good dog. You do just like your told, don’t you.

                    Now do it some more. Keep posting.

                    1. Oh, for the love of God, cap, just ignore it!

  11. So, am I the only one who thinks that the government should have no say in employer-employee relationships? I understand that the government gives unions more leverage than they would get in a free market (all the way down to not arresting strikers who do damage to property or scabs / allowing businesses to use force to protect their property/new employees) but is more government intervention the answer?

    1. The unions would be wise to support right-to-work and then work to ensure non-union workers are exempt from any collective bargainning agreement.

      Once companies notice the time and costs of negotiating salary and benefits with each non-union worker, they’ll opt for a union dues requirement voluntarily.

      1. Once companies notice the time and costs of negotiating salary and benefits with each non-union worker, they’ll opt for a union dues requirement voluntarily.

        Yes, that totally explains why 93% of the private work force is non-unionized, and employers go to such lengths to talk employees out of unionizing.

        Jettisoning strikes and excessive salaries and counterproductive union work rules in favor of individualized employment contracts seems to be the revealed preference of actual employers.

        1. It may be industry specific; Bank of America can probably minimize the cost of negotiating with each worker individually because of the decentralized nature of a branch. Large manufacturing firms centralized to a large degree and probably prefer to centralize labor negotiation as well.

          I’m talking about a way for unions to achieve their goals at a GM with a better PR play for the public. This obviously may not work elsewhere.

      2. That, or they’ll simply hire independent workers on exactly the same terms as the CBA.

    2. Exactly, this is about decreasing freedom. Federal law protects workers’ right not to join a union or pay for activities that violate their political or religious beliefs.

      Also, as libertarians constantly remind us, you aren’t entitled to or forced to work anywhere. This is about the government forcing a restriction on contract rights on businesses and unions.

      Nothing worth having a “hissy fit” over I guess.

      1. This is about the government forcing a restriction on contract rights on businesses and unions.

        Uh, what do think the NLRA is in the first place?

      2. Riiiiiiight. Because not using the government to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of working is definitely all about “decreasing freedom.”

        1. Only insofar as it’s enforcing a freely drawn contract between two private parties.

          If you don’t like the terms you don’t have to work there. Isn’t that what you always use as an excuse to oppose the minimum wage?

          1. If you don’t like the terms

            Uh — again — the terms are dictated by a heavy-handed federal law: If 50.0001% of the “employees” at a given workplace opt for a “union,” then that workplace must “bargain” with that union.

            There’s nothing “freely drawn” about any contract that arises in that scenario.

            Right-to-work is merely a minor correction to a bigger mistake. Painting it as some sort of restriction on contract freedom is ridiculous, considering that the entire situation is governed by a restriction on contract freedom to begin with.

        2. Try explaining to Tony that the “k” in “knucklehead” is silent and watch his head explode.

          1. You have no idea what you believe, do you? You just think whatever fat Republican hacks tell you to think. You are against the side of personal freedom on this one. This is a case where whoring for special government treatment of corporations does not coincide with individual freedom, strangely enough.

            I don’t care if you want to call yourself a libertarian but that does entail certain principles, unless you’re fine being known as a sniveling sham of a philosophy whose only purpose is to provide cover for corporate abuse.

            1. Did Tony just implode? I think he imploded.

            2. Employers do have the right to require employees to be union members or pay dues, if that is what the company wants. Now, Tony, admit that employers also have the right to choose not to put up with unions whatsoever, and that mandatory bargaining laws are completely wrong.

              1. In general I have no problem with government granting more rights to workers and the other people who, individually, lack influence and bargaining leverage in their community. It’s not like a business and its management don’t benefit from government-granted rights.

                I’m for more freedom rather than less, even if that entails government mandates and regulations, because I don’t base every single thing I believe in on the mindless nonsense that government=bad, which entails that all of the inequities in a default natural society are worth preserving for some reason.

                Workers are partial government creations, after all–we collectively pay to educate them. Dunno about you but I don’t like giving charity to for-profit entities.

      3. Have you ever heard of a closed shop? Obviously, that “Federal law” you cite, es no worky if unions in most states are still permitted to operate a closed shop and force employees to pay up or else.

      4. Saying that the union can’t FORCE you to pay them dues is not decreasing freedom you fucking moron.

        Are the poor little unions afraid that if you aren’t forced to pay dues you won’t? Cry me a fucking river.

    3. So, am I the only one who thinks that the government should have no say in employer-employee relationships?

      Nope. I’m against RTW too. This is layering one injustice on another. They are just pointed in opposite directions. Like washing out the taste of arsenic with Drano, or Bud Light if that’s a bit much.

      1. Sure, right-to-work is not ideal. But it’s “not ideal” in the sense that it’s “not ideal” to get a new paint job when someone hits your car.

        1. This is like the CRA.

          Fixing some real bad abuse then adding on minor abuse in the opposite direction.

          Why not just get rid of the abuse?

      2. Or, perhaps a better metaphor: Labor law is inherently about choreographing the contracts between employers and unions. Right-to-work just changes the nature of the dance a little bit.

        The real answer, of course, is to get rid of the choreography altogether. But so long as it’s going to exist, you might as well applaud efforts that expand individuals’ choices.

      3. Well, states can’t do anything about NLRA. That’s at the federal level.
        RTW is sort of a local countermeasure.

  12. “The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167). Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549). Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.

    According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.”

    Source

    1. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.”

      Those studies have used absolute number instead of as a % of employed workers. Less population, less chance of even having workers around to be killed. Adjust it for percentage of workforce and the right-to-work states should be ahead.

      1. See my response below. The Tony is ignoring demographics totally. Liberals love that little trick…

    2. “The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).

      Do you have some statistics with cost of living figured into that? If you lived in Maryland and made even the higher figure you threw out there, going by what you are throwing out as a free-bargaining state, for Indiana (add $72 a week ), you couldn’t afford to live under a bridge in Maryland.

      Liberals love these sort of distorted facts, and especially like making them into pretty charts ( see – MSNBC / New York Times ). Jokers, don’t know anything about demographics.

      Tony, do you also go by the name of Ezra Klein?

      1. Okay, so do your little analysis and get back to me. Then explain why that means it’s OK for government to insert itself into a private contract between business and union, and forbid them from making certain kinds of agreements.

        1. This shit’s gold. It’s like making/tricking a Klansman into singing reggae.

          1. Tony the libertarian!

            1. I am a libertarian, in that I favor liberty.

              I’m just not dumb enough to think that liberty and antigovernment radicalism have anything to do with each other.

        2. Tony, you are so cute, like a litte puppy.

      2. Okay, so do your little analysis and get back to me. Then explain why that means it’s OK for government to insert itself into a private contract between business and union, and forbid them from making certain kinds of agreements.

        1. Then explain why that means it’s OK for government to insert itself into a private contract between business and union

          Because the government has already inserted itself into the contract by dictating its existence, and the nature of its existence, in the first place.

          You keep trying to steal a base here. You’re acting as if employers and unions just operate out in Anarchist Land, voluntarily forming agreements with one another and living happily ever after, until some nasty government intrustion like “right-to-work” comes along to louse everything up.

          The whole thing is already operating within a government-dictated realm to begin with. If you want to start questioning why that’s “OK,” then great! But of course, that’s not what you actually want to do. Your beef isn’t with government “inserting itself into contracts.” Your beef is simply with the particular type of inserting that’s going on.

          Somebody else can make the obligatory “insertion” crack here.

          Heh heh, “crack.”

          1. Totally agree, the entire situation is government manipulated. Like the situation of a corporation existing on the back of taxpayer-funded entitlements ranging from limited liability to police to the education of its workforce.

            You’re right, I am not against government inserting itself as a matter of principle. I just think you should default to a position of more freedom to contract rather than less.

        2. For the same reason it’s OK for the government to insert itself into a private contract between a business and a gang of extortionists?

      3. A quick look at this map pretty much confirms what you’re speculating.

    3. Yeah. IF you can get a job!

    4. What it the unemployment rate in RTW versus other states?

  13. Hey Shikha, are you ever embarrassed by writing for us?

  14. Have they passed the right to live in an unmercifully harsh climate with the most unpleasant people on earth bill?

    Sorry Hoosiers, I lived there for 15 years, it was living hell on earth. Never again.

    1. But…but…Right to Work!!
      Cunt.

      1. Cunt? WTF?

        1. It’s a spoofer. He’s being a dick to Capitol L for some retarded reason.

          1. Yah, I see now… (:

            1. Also, screw you, dude. I have to wait another four days for my copy of Skyrim to arrive, and you’ve already been playing it since, like, 1840. JELOSY

              1. Dude, download online? Do you have an obsession with those ancient kaleidoscopically light reflecting arifacts they call CDs?

                And, just to rub it in, I just found me a new Elven bow( yes I know everyone hates those fucking Elves and all that shit), but their bows do serious carnage. So as soon as I get my arse up out of this pit, and enchant this bad boy with the fire enchantment, I am going to go to Fellglow Keep and seriously fuck up some shit.

        2. I like to say “cunt.” Sorry. I have a limited vocabulary.

    2. Indiana has one of the best beer bars (Rich O’s) and one of the best beer stores (Keg Liquors) in the nation.

      And 3 Floyds.

      I will give them a bit of a pass for the rest of their suckiness.

      1. What town is that in? Most of Indiana bars have 2 choices – bud light – miller light.

        Just north of there however, in the town of Frankenmuth, MI, is some of the best microbrew I have ever consumed. I will give an especially high star rating to their Hefeweizen, … excellent.

  15. …a right-to-work bill that will make it illegal for unions to collect mandatory dues from non-members…

    You’d think that stealing would already be illegal in all 50 states.

    A question for all the Ron Paul fans though:

    Why does Ron Paul criticize Santorum for voting against a federal right to work law, when he defends the state-by-state approach for other controversial laws?

    1. Umm, maybe there are some things that he doesn’t consider should be up to the states, like organized crime…. Does he advocate that theft of private property should be left to the states?

      1. Theft is generally left to the states. As is murder.

        I think the answer to CE’s question is because of the FEDERAL union laws that currently exist. Get rid of those and Im sure he would be happy to leave right-to-work up to the states.

        1. Punishment for, yes, severity of. That is not what I am asking.

    2. I’d imagine that once you got rid of federal protection of unions and such, many states would have no other choice but to kiss closed shops goodbye, as we’d see states competing for both businesses and labor.

  16. Right to work laws are a violation of the companies right to contract.

    But, it goes way down on the bottom of the list of abuses to worry about, somewhere below the existence of copyright and patents.

  17. Right to work laws are a violation of the companies right to contract.

    As I’ve noted elsewhere in this thread, this is a really funky framing. An employer’s contract rights have already been demolished by federal labor law. “Right-to-work” is simply a tweak of the situation within that realm — within that existing demolition of rights.

    You simply cannot weigh the propriety of right-to-work laws in a vacuum. They must be viewed in the larger context of federal labor law, specifically the NLRA/Wagner Act.

    That federal labor law is where the “abuse” happens. Everything that follows from point is just quibbling over details. You can’t just glance at right-to-work and declare that some principle is being violated, because the actual violation of principle has taken place several steps back.

    1. This makes no sense. It makes sense if we are just concerned with whether employers or unions get more points in a zero-sum game, but that is not necessarily a reasonable model of the situation. Under Libertarian assumptions, the old saying of two wrongs not making a right may apply.

      My guess would be that the Wagner Act would empower weak unions, those at risk of being simply eliminated by employers in the absence of legislation. On the other hand, right-to-work would seem to weaken unions that are already in a strong enough position to demand dues of nonmembers. So it isn’t clear to me that that they even affect too many of the same organizations.

  18. Do RTW laws prohibit the company from agreeing that all of its workers will pay dues? If not, I don’t see a restriction on right to contract.

    1. I think they do. Its left up to the worker.

      Literally the worker has the right to join (and pay dues) or not join the union and cant be fired for choosing not to join.

      Although Im not sure how that works in at will states that are also right to work states.

      1. This is where RTW laws lose me – if I own a company, and for some retarded reason want all my employees to be unionized, why should I be denied that (retarded) choice? I fail to see the distinction between a law like that and a law not allowing employers to require uniforms, or any other of the myriad workplace laws in this country. The right to run your business without interference is also the right to make retarded business decisions.

        Then again, RTW laws would be unnecessary if the government stopped enforcing collective bargaining in the private sector.

        1. If all of a (retarded) company’s workers are members of the union, the RTW law doesn’t apply. The RTW law protects non-union workers from having to pay union dues in a mixed employee company. At least, that’s the way I read the article.

          1. That’s how I understand it to. If you are an employer, you’re still free to discriminate against non-union members in hiring. You can only hire union members.

            What is forbidden is compelling non-union members (should you chose to hire any) to join the union or pay dues to it.

    2. Interesting. Devil in details, I suppose.

      Even if they do interfere with the company’s right to make itself a closed shop by contract, I count that as a lesser interference than a closed shop law, and thus an incremental gain.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.