FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            
April 11, 2019
CONTACT: Ryan Williams


Democrats Want To Turn The Clock Back To Before 1947

April 10, 2019
Washington Examiner

Democrats in Congress want to turn back the clock.

In 1947, amid a period of labor unrest so extreme that the public had taken notice, Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, over the veto of President Harry S. Truman. The bill was an effort to strike a reasonable balance in labor relations where the decade-old Wagner Act had failed.

Among Taft-Hartley’s critical reforms was that it permitted states to adopt what are now known as right-to-work laws. These laws make it illegal for employers to discriminate against nonunion workers. In right-to-work states, no one has to pay union dues as a condition for keeping his or her job. In all other states, unwilling workers can be forced to pay into union coffers, which in practice often means they are forced to pay for political advocacy they oppose.

In the 72 years since Taft-Hartley became law, 29 of the 50 states have adopted right-to-work laws, including six states since 2012. Two states, including New Hampshire in 1949 and Missouri in 2018, later repealed right-to-work, and in West Virginia, the new right-to-work law is temporarily on hold pending a possible state Supreme Court ruling.

More and more states have been going right-to-work in recent years, and it isn’t hard to see why given the economic evidence. Between 2001 and 2016, right-to-work states experienced job growth nearly twice as great, 27% compared to 15%, as forced-unionism states. They have also consistently outpaced the other states in wage growth and economic output. Business owners prefer to locate their firms in right-to-work states, all other things being equal, and domestic population migration has consistently moved this decade away from forced-union states to right-to-work states.

Right-to-work is usually a good deal for workers and even for union members. It ensures their freedom of association and helps create a local climate of prosperity, a rising tide that lifts all boats. And a substantial number of union members and fee-payers, if given the choice not to pay union dues, would quit their union in a heartbeat, as has been demonstrated among public employees since the 2018 Supreme Court Janus decision. In Wisconsin, for example, in the time since forced dues by public employees were banned in 2011, 52% of public sector employees have left their unions, according to government data compiled at

Union bosses hate right-to-work because they don’t like being forced to work for their pay. It isn’t easy to keep members happy, as they must in states where union membership is optional. The bosses would much prefer to trap those in a prison of forced payments and default monopoly representation. Some unions have even cut deals with company management at their members’ expense, then turned to federal law to prevent the workers from decertifying them.

Despite labor unions’ sharp decline in popularity among workers, congressional Democrats are more or less owned by union bosses. That is why House Democrats are proposing a bill outlawing state right-to-work laws. This would turn the clock back to before 1947.

There are two Americas: a right-to-work America that is growing economically and gaining population and a forced-union America that is stagnant, losing congressional seats with each successive census. More and more states are opting to join the vibrant and dynamic America. This is why Democrats are trying to kill off right-to-work, to help their political cronies. The bill will not pass the Republican-controlled Senate, but it should serve as a reminder of how important it is not to put Democrats in positions of power.

To access the article, click here.

Featured Blog

AZ Daily Sun--Coconino Voices: PRO Act legislation would hurt local businesses

— 05.13.2021 —
By: Julie Pastrik Arizona businesses and workers have had an incredibly challenging year given the economic slowdown that followed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. However, local businesses and industries across the state are resilient and on the road to a strong recovery that will mean more jobs for Arizona workers and increased economic development to strengthen our communities. That is, as long as Congress does not move forward with potentially devastating legislation that would hurt local employers and employees alike while impeding our state’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem determined to do just that by pushing through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As harmless as the name may sound, the PRO Act would have serious repercussions for local businesses, particularly smaller ones, while undermining long-standing rights for employees and threatening the growing gig economy that has helped provide much-needed income for so many during this time. Arizona is fortunate to have leaders like Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both refrained from joining the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring the PRO Act. In a slap in the face to Arizona workers, the PRO Act removes one of the most fundamental rights a worker has when it comes to voting in elections to determine whether to unionize: the secret ballot. Instead, workers could be forced to sign union authorization cards in front of other employees, their employer, or union organizers. This bill would also destroy workers’ right to privacy by allowing unions access to personal information, including their home address and personal phone number. If that doesn’t open the door to union intimidation and harassment, I don’t know what does. As if that was not bad enough, the PRO Act would create major new challenges for Arizona businesses, making it harder for them to create jobs, expand in their communities, and even keep their doors open. It would redefine what it means to be a “joint employer” under national labor law, greatly complicating existing relationships between franchisors and franchisees as well as between business owners, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers. At the same time, it would interfere with attorney-client confidentiality and make it much more difficult for small businesses to secure a legal advice on labor issues. Particularly harmful during these times, the PRO Act would apply a failed policy from California to national labor law by using the “ABC” test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. This makes it much harder to qualify as an independent contractor, threatening the freedom and flexibility that tens of thousands of Arizonans find in independent contracting and gig economy work. Ultimately, the PRO Act is bad public policy that only works for union leaders to inflate their falling ranks while threatening workers’ rights, undermining small businesses, and jeopardizing a growing part of our economy. This is not a good solution for Arizona, and Senators Sinema and Kelly should stay firm and not cosponsor this misguided legislation.
Read More