patching...
Breaking: Nazareth Area School Director Miller Resigns »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Pa. Right-to-Work Fight Battle Lines Drawn

A group of House Republicans want to make Pennsylvania the 25th right-to-work state

 

By Melissa Daniels | PA Independent

HARRISBURG — The “right-to-work” fight isn’t new to Pennsylvania. Neither is the ideological line in the sand between labor unions and lawmakers seeking to limit their influence.

But this session, Pennsylvania can become the nation’s 25th right-to-work state. At least, a group of Republican House members and a coalition of supporters think it should.

 

On Tuesday, state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, said five other Republican House members introduced the Pennsylvania Open Workforce Initiative. The package of six bills aims to end “compulsory unionism” for private- and public-sector unions, a practice requiring nonmembers to still pay fees.

“In right-to-work states, people can be a union member if they choose to. We’re just saying, ‘Let union members choose if they want to be in a union,’” Metcalfe said. “Why do they need the government to enforce it?”

The legislation comes after Michigan, a state with strong union presence, passed right-to-work laws in the midst of heated protests and full-out demonstrations in the streets of Lansing.

Labor advocates call right-to-work policies an attack on workers, pointing to lower wages, poorer working environments and an overall weakened middle class as results of weakened union power. But supporters say it’s an issue of constitutional personal freedom, and that workers should have the right to decide whether they want to be represented.

Tuesday’s announcement was made at a news conference with about three dozen lawmakers, business officials, school board directors and political advocates, 20 of whom gave personal testimony on why they believe Pennsylvania should become a right-to-work state.

That included non-union member and public school employee Neil Weidman, and Mary Burkholder, a nurse and former union member. There was also a presence from the national right-to-work movement, including Justin Davis of the National Right to Work Committee.

Gov. Tom Corbett already has said that he Pennsylvania “lacks the political will” to pass right-to-work laws, though he would sign them if they came across his desk. But that sentiment seems to fuel right-to-work supporters, including Rep. Kathy Rapp, R-Warren.

 

Warren said there are a number of “core conservatives” in the General Assembly who are committed to seeing these laws change.

“If Governor Corbett would step up, and our party leaders, and take the lead on this issue, Pennsylvania would be America’s next right-to-work state,” Rapp said.

Her legislation would keep unions from collecting dues from non-union public school employees, a measure she’s introduced previously.

Simon Campbell is a director at the Pennsbury School Board, and the president of Stop Teacher Strikes. He called out Corbett for allowing the latest contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to include a provision on compulsory dues payments. Pennsylvania law, he said, allows that to be negotiated.

“Just because it exists in a previous agreement doesn’t mean it has to exist in a future one,” Campbell said.

 

There are about 20,000 state workers who are not union members that the provision applied to, Campbell said.

But getting these laws passed in Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled General Assembly would mean winning over many Republican lawmakers who take campaign donations from labor unions. Metcalfe said that if citizens in Pennsylvania demanded that lawmakers stopped “representing the special interests of the unions,” that lawmakers would listen.

With that will of the people, he said, the legislation could win approval.

“I believe that the power of the individual citizen can overcome the power of the public-sector unions and the unions at large in Pennsylvania,” he said.

Stephen Herzenberg, economist from the Keystone Research Center, said right-to-work laws deliberately weaken unions and result in a weakened middle class.

“You can’t look at these laws in isolation from the overall situation of workers and employers,” he said. “When you look at the overall situation, the problem in the United States is not that unions are too strong, it’s that they’re too weak.”

To the unions that these laws would affect, right-to-work laws are an adversary that they are prepared to fight.

Abe Amorós, the Pennsylvania legislative director for the Laborer’s International Union of North America, said right-to-work proposals show nothing more than “hostility towards workers,” whether they are unionized or not. Wages in right-to-work states like Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia are 3 percent lower than other states, he said.

Amorós said he doesn’t see House members who support right-to-work finding success. In 2011, the House Labor and Industry Committee held a hearing on similar initiatives. Amorós said the bills did not make it out of the committee.

“We knew this was coming, and we’re going to prepare to fight it off like we did last time,” he said.

Rick Bloomingdale, the president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, said that nonmembers who pay dues have the same protections as members that go beyond salaries and benefits. For example, a nonmember has the same rights against discrimination from a boss, he said.

“You take away unions, you take away the middle class,” he said. “The two are inextricably linked in this country. We didn’t have a middle class before the labor movement got strong.”

Right-to-work has been introduced in every legislative session for the past 30 years, Bloomingdale said.

“We’ve kept it bottled up and defeated for 30 years, and we’re going to keep trying to bottle it up as defeat it as long as we can.”

Related Topics: Right to Work

Arthur

10:52 am on Friday, January 25, 2013

No worker should be forced to join a union in order to get a job. Likewise, a non-union member should not be protected or represented by the union. A good union does not need right to work laws.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Hank

12:22 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013

Joe sommers,are you saying that workers no longer need safe working conditions or living wages?And just because American corporations lobbied for and won the right to exploit workers in poor countries without regulations or labor Unions we should just roll over? And why is it that workers are the ones who have to take less when those on the top are taking more and more,why can't they learn to take less?

Kevin Boston

11:11 am on Friday, January 25, 2013

“In right-to-work states, people can be a union member if they choose to. We’re just saying, ‘Let union members choose if they want to be in a union,’” Metcalfe said. “Why do they need the government to enforce it?”

*****YEAH?? SHOW ME!! SHOW ME THE GUY OR GAL WHO CAN JUST WALK INTO A UNION HALL AND SAY: "I WORK FOR ....so and so... I NOW WISH TO BECOME A UNION MEMBER. WHERE DO I SIGN AND WHAT DO I NEED TO PAY?" It SHOULD be the case, that's how EASY it SHOULD be. But it isn't, not unless you're an actor, a sports player, judge, doctor, or some other IMPORTANT person.

People who need unions the most are the most separated from them, and they are brainwashed into thinking they can make it without them. You can, but I don't advise it.

Reply

Mary

12:25 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013

It sounds to me like unions are trying to take the employee's choice away. The argument regarding the weakening of the middle class if unions are diminished is total bull, I shouldn't be forced to pay into a union. Some of these unions are killing our economy! The only thing they care about is retaining their power. Watching some of these thugs at demonstrations makes me sick,

Reply

Rasterone

4:57 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013

I am no fan of unions but I suspect this is really an anti public school teacher smear wrapped up in sweet political cloth by our governor..and it stinks...instead of addressing real problems the governor seeks to blame it on teachers

Reply

QED

9:27 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013

Right to work laws increased wages in the southern right to work states. These states have raised wages over the years by luring manufacturing from the higher wage [and less competitive] northern non right to work states. Unions are an attempt to monopolize the labor force to extract higher profit for the worker. Don't pretend that the result is not higher prices for consumers, generally the middle class. In the end both employers and consumers seek lower prices by moving production to lower cost locations...Alabama, Mexico, China, Cambodia, etc. If unions would allow wages to fluctuate many employees would not have faced layoffs but they would have faced lower wages. There are only difficult and sometimes unpleasant choices when markets become free between the have mores [in the U.S.] and the have less [in places like China and Cambodia]. With or without unions some workers end up poorer than they might have without free trade. And without free trade a lot of consumers end up much poorer...

Reply

Rasterone

10:20 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013

Well unions may be a necessary evil to counteract the oppressive dominance of the state as a controlling factor as buyer of labor, license of labor , and gross meddling in market pricing to force just about everybody to over pay for teachers in areas unable or unwilling to pay otherwise. And the state forcing essentially the middle class to pay for anybody who so much as steps off a bus in PA or has a wireless link to a PA address..no matter at what cost. Complete with a rhetoric that in a sense says a school district cannot fail, it must be bailed out at any cost. The state created the problem but wants teachers to bail out state folly........and middle class homeowners pick up lions share of the costs while residential landlords get a relative trip to the bank , paying far less .

Reply

Mary

12:50 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013

Hank, yes you right! I am sure Joe wants unsafe working conditions and workers to be underpayed. He wants workers exploited everywhere. He wants old people to just die and young children to starve. I just added those last couple on! lol Hopefully you know what sarcasm is! The point is, you misrepresented what Joe said!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Hank

5:43 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013

Mary,I disagree. Joe said workers needed unions in the past but not anymore.If so who will defend the workers rights that they fought so hard to gain?these rights are under attack by corporate leaders like the kochs, Devos and many more.google them because I can't believe you know who these people are and would still defend their agenda.

Also Joe said its a global economy now and the only solution is for workers to exept less in order to compete.Where does this compitition end? with american factory workers living in dorms and making enough to barely survive, and buying supplies from the company store.Why is reconsidering our trade agreements with countries that allow their people to be exploited and don't let them organize to bargain for better wages like Americans not an option?

And like I asked Joe,why is it the workers(who's wages have been stagnent at best for the last 30 years or so) who have to learn to live with less,why don't those on the top who have seen their compansation gain over 600% during that time have to learn to make do with less?

Wayne Schissler

10:46 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013

An explanation on how the current system is designed to produce more money for teacher's unions and more donations for politicians. It's an incestuous relationship that drains money for their benefit, not the students.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVyNlJUKgug

Reply

Rasterone

5:03 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013

I would agree that Joe Sommers has good odds of being rewarded for his performance in an open economy but that is NOT the case in public education--in short the state holds a monopoly position as the only major employer that counts, the effective only grantor of license to teach , and the primary controller of just about everything--so to a large extent the lowly worked is forced to eat the employers operation mode --now if employer happens to be liberal and grants all sort of benefits that might work out well for workers --but if employer could freely squash wages and cut benefits and hire friends of the Board and say ignore veterans ( who have a mandatory preference in PA ) then about the only balance of power rests with a viable union. I trust the state less than I do the unions! And I do agree that unions seem to invent reasons to hire more teachers which the legislators are quick to adopt..must get them votes or something like that.
Then again Toll Brothers seems to be able to put up McMansions for far far less per square foot that the do gooders who put up public housing projects by 4 or 5 :1

Reply

Leave a comment