UAW member makes the case for Workplace Freedom

I wanted to share this email with you so you can attend one of these Workplace Freedom workshops. I had the pleasure of meeting Terry Bowman - and hearing him speak - at a Citizen Watchdog Training. As a union member, he has a unique and compelling perspective on right-to-work positions and can tell how Michigan became a RTW state.

For more information on Bowman, his website is Union Conservatives.

Here is the email:

UAW member and Union Conservative founder Terry Bowman will be the guest speaker at two Toledo area Workplace Freedom workshops

Wednesday, July 17th
6 p.m.
West Branch Library
1320 W. Sylvania Ave.
(between Lewis and Jackman)

Tuesday, July 23th
6 p.m.
Point Place Library
2727 117th St.
Point Place


Bowman, a current UAW member for Ford Motor Co., was a leading advocate for Michigan's recent successful Freedom to Work legislation, and he will be sharing his story about how it happened in Michigan. He will also be sharing valuable insights on how Ohio can become the next Right to Work state in the nation.

"Now is the time for Ohio to discard compulsory restrictions on workers and allow them to choose for themselves whether they want to pay money to an outside, third-party agency as a condition of employment," said Bowman in an e-mail to Union Conservatives members. "I will use my time in Columbus to not only tell the story about how it happened in Michigan, but to make a simple, yet bold declaration: Ohio union workers deserve the same rights that Michigan workers have been granted, and Ohio Workplace Freedom is now on the table."

Bowman will be there to issue a 'call to action' to grassroots activists and Ohio's legislature and Governor Kasich.

"I am very excited to be talking to so many enthusiastic supporters of the pro-union worker issue that is correctly being called "Workplace Freedom" here in Ohio. With Indiana and Michigan now Right to Work states, Ohio cannot wait any longer to grant their union workers the return of their 1st amendment right of Freedom of Association - or conversely to not associate."

Bowman says their are many economic advantages to becoming a Workplace Freedom state, but granting workers the freedom to choose will always be the single best reason for Ohio to become the 25th Right to Work state in the nation.

The events are co-sponsored by Children of Liberty and Toledo Tea Party.

For event information, please contact Union Conservatives, or:

Toledo Tea Party
Contact: John McAvoy
Mobile: 419-787-9585
E-mail: John@ToledoTeaParty.com

2 Toledo Republicans agree: RTW is 'extreme political position'

An item opposing Ohio Right-to-Work provisions was approved last night by Toledo City Council. Only Tom Waniewski, Republican from District 5, voted against the resolution.

Joe McNamara, Democrat at-large, presented the item:

"..expressing our opposition to Right-to-Work laws which has a deceptive title. From the research I’ve done right to work actually hurts workers whether or not they’re in a union or not, makes working conditions less safe, and this is a sort of rehashing of SB 5 all over again. So I hope you will support this resolution and oppose right to work coming to Ohio."

At-large Republicans George Sarantou and Rob Ludeman agreed with McNamara and voted to pass the resolution.

Do Ludeman and Sarantou really believe that RTW is an "extreme political position"?

Did they - or anyone - bother to check the veracity of the whereas statements, especially the claim that RTW states have "a consistently lower quality of life than in other states – lower wages, and higher poverty and infant mortality rates" or that it will "silence whistleblowers"

How do these two *Republicans* justify this vote which is diametrically at odds with the core principle of individual freedom and responsibility espoused and supported by the Republican Party?

Apparently, they agree that forcing employees to join and/or pay dues to an organization they may oppose is okay.

Sadly, there was no discussion of the resolution prior to passage - just McNamara's comment and then a vote. And it passed as an emergency measure because clearly "preservation of the public health and safety" was at risk.

Guess the health and safety of those who don't want to join a union is irrelevant.

Here's the resolution:

RES. 123-13

Opposing “right to work” laws and the “Workplace Freedom” Constitutional Amendment and promoting fair labor practices to support working families and our local community; and declaring an emergency.

WHEREAS, anti-labor special interest groups are promoting a “right to work” law called “Workplace Freedom” which is actually harmful to working families and the middle class; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws give multi-national corporations even more power to outsource jobs, cut wages, and reduce benefits at the expense of workers, small businesses, and the local economy; and

WHEREAS, workers in states with “right to work” laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states – lower wages, and higher poverty and infant mortality rates; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws weaken the voices of our everyday heroes – our nurses, firefighters, police officers, and first responders – by making it harder to bargain for safe staffing levels and necessary equipment to keep us safe; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws will silence whistleblowers who are counted on to keep our workplaces safe, protect consumer goods, services and products, and safeguard our natural resources and the environment; and

WHEREAS, the implementation of “right to work” laws will erode the tax base that supports vital services in our communities, such as education, public safety, roads, water, etc.; and

WHEREAS, less than two years ago, Ohio voters rejected a similar political attack on Ohio’s workers and the middle class by overwhelmingly voting NO on Senate Bill 5/Issue 2, and it is clear that the sentiment of the people of Toledo is that the
collective bargaining rights of workers should be protected; and

WHEREAS, business and labor should work together to create good jobs and improve the economy, not be distracted by extreme political positions that seeks to silence the voice of workers and drive down the middle class; NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That the City of Toledo takes the firm position to oppose so-called “right to work” laws and the “Workplace Freedom” Constitutional Amendment as they are wrong for Toledo and wrong for the State of Ohio.

SECTION 2. That this resolution is declared to be an emergency and shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. The reason for the emergency lies in the fact that the same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety and for the further reason that Toledo must show immediate support for working families and the middle class in the face of the proposed “right to work” laws.

Federal Court: Speech restrictions on students unconstitutional

Students and free speech win over University of Cincinnati!

Press Release:

Federal Court: University of Cincinnati Speech Restrictions on Students Unconstitutional

Students supporting "right to work" amendment cannot be arrested for discussing amendment and gathering signatures on campus

Cincinnati, OH - A federal court today ruled that the University of Cincinnati's blanket prohibition on student political speech on campus violates the First Amendment. The ruling, made by Judge Black of the Cincinnati division of the Southern District of Ohio, paves the way for members of the student group Young Americans for Liberty ("YAL") to advocate and collect signatures for the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment on campus.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which also drafted the Workplace Freedom Amendment, took up the students' case and challenged UC's policies after UC threatened to arrest student members of YAL if they attempted to gather signatures for the right-to-work cause on campus.

The lawsuit sought recognition that (1) the First Amendment applied to public university property, such as the University of Cincinnati; (2) signature-gathering for petition drives is a protected form of political speech; and (3) UC's requirement that all UC students register up to 15 days ahead of time before engaging in any political speech on campus violates the First Amendment.

In his decision, Judge Black emphasized "It is simply unfathomable that a UC student needs to give the University advance notice of an intent to gather signatures for a ballot initiative. There is no danger to public order arising out of students walking around campus with clipboards seeking signatures." The order, an across-the-board rebuke to UC's policies, enjoins UC from:

* "Requiring prior notification for the solicitation by students of signatures for petitions;"

* "Prohibiting all solicitation by students of signatures for petitions in any designated public forum, including the Free Speech Area, the outdoor spaces described in the MainStreet Event Guide, and campus sidewalks;"

* "Requiring that all student 'demonstrations, picketing, or rallies' occur only in the Free Speech Area;"

* "Requiring 5 to 15 days prior notification for any and all student 'demonstrations, picketing, or rallies' without differentiations;"

* "Imposing or enforcing any policy restricting student speech in any designated public forum, including the Free Speech Area, the outdoors spaces described in the MainStreet Event Guide, and campus sidewalks, that is not individually and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling university interest.

The Court further ordered UC to craft "more narrowly tailored regulations that regulate student expressive activities . . . only as are necessary to serve a compelling government interest." "UC is an arm of the state that has chased and received state and federal tax dollars since its inception, all in the name of 'public education,'" said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

"UC mistakenly seeks to advance its mission of public education by shielding its students from actual education on public policy issues that affect all Ohioans. Fortunately, the First Amendment allows us to protect the education of UC students from their educators; it further protects the right of students to calmly address facts and arguments that UC would rather suppress, and to do so without prior permission."

The 1851 Center and UC students endured four months of procedural tactics, harassing depositions, and frivolous daily letters by UC's attorneys, after Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine authorized $200,000 in state funds to the private law firm of Crabbe Brown, a campaign contributor of Mr. DeWine's, to defend the clearly unconstitutional University of Cincinnati policies. The 1851 Center represents clients at no cost.

Multiple Ohio colleges and universities maintain speech restrictions similar in kind, although not as extensive, as those of the University of Cincinnati - - the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recently named UC's speech policies the worst in the nation. However, these policies are suspect in light of the Court's clear ruling.

Click here to view the court's decision.

Click here to read more about the case.

New Report: Workplace freedom enhances prosperity

The Buckeye Institute held a press conference this morning to release their new report: Ohio Right-to-Work, How the Economic Freedom of Workers Enhances Prosperity.  The conclusion of the report is that  "forced unionization has meant lower income, fewer jobs and out-migration."

I think it's important to note that the first page of the report is titled "Why This Report Matters to You" and it puts the reasoning in very specific terms:

This Buckeye Institute report looks at how a right-towork law likely would impact Ohio for the good, helping stem the outflow of people and capital that has contributed to the stagnation of the Ohio economy. At a time when resources are limited, this is a state legislative action that does not add to budget woes, and indeed helps provide the resources for future growth of both private and public needs. The bottom line is that freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity.

Here is the Press Release:

March 28, 2012—COLUMBUS, Ohio – If Ohio had passed a Right-to-Work law in 1977 the personal income of a family of four would, on average, be as much as $12,000 higher annually according to a report released by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today.

"Given the actions of our neighbor Indiana, right-to-work is not a debate Ohio can avoid,” said Buckeye Institute president Kevin Holtsberry. “But Ohioans deserve a debate based on the actual history of the issue and the economic realities that underlie it – not myths and misinformation. We believe this report will serve as a basis for that debate.”

The report finds that states with right-to-work laws have much higher rates of growth in income, new jobs, wages, capital investment and in-migration of people. Ohio has suffered a growth deficit for several decades¬¬¬–growing less than the nation as a whole, and its income levels have fallen below several southern states-historically the poorest of the nation. Ohio has paid a high price for failing to avail itself of right-to-work legislation.


The lead author of the report, Dr. Richard Vedder, is Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of numerous scholarly papers in journals of economics and public policy as well as several books.


“Monopolistic practices in labor markets have been an important factor in Ohio’s economic stagnation,” said Dr. Vedder. “The bottom line is freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity and right-to-work laws are an important step in the right direction.”


At a time when resources are limited, the report argues, making Ohio a right-to-work state does not add to its budget woes and provides an opportunity for economic growth and increased income for Ohioans.


Recent polling data indicate that a majority of Ohioans support such reform.


###


The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio’s premier free market think tank. The Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio’s toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for 18 years.

I hope you'll take the time to read the report - it's not long and it provides facts and figures to consider about this highly-emotional topic.



NOTE:  Blogger has changed its layout and I'm still getting used to it.  I apologize for any technical issues in this post.

Workplace Freedom Amendment clears Ohio Ballot Board

Earlier this month, the Workplace Freedom Amendment received approval on its language from the Ohio Attorney General. Yesterday, the amendment cleared a second hurdle when the Ohio Ballot Board certified that it contains a single issue.

The Workplace Freedom Amendment would prohibit any entity from requiring an individual or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization, though voluntary affiliation is not restricted.

In Ohio, amendments must, by law, be a single issue and it is the task of the Ballot Board to ensure that law is followed.

Supporters will now begin gathering signatures to put the measure on the ballot. They must collect signatures from registered voters in 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. The signature total must equal 5% of the total vote cast in the county for the governor in the last election. The total number of signatures must equal 10% of the total vote for governor.

Ohio AG certifies Workplace Freedom Amendment language

On January 23rd, The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law submitted language and the required 1,000 signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the Ohio ballot to prohibit any entity from requiring an individual or employer to become or remain a member of a labor organization, though voluntary affiliation is not restricted.

As the first step in the amendment process, the Ohio Attorney General must certify that the summary of the amendment is a "fair and truthful statement" of the proposed amendment.

Yesterday, AG Mike DeWine did just that, clearing the way for the amendment, “Freedom to choose whether to participate in a labor organization as a condition of employment,” to proceed in the process.

The next step is the Ohio Ballot Board which will determine if the amendment is a single issue. Once that determination is made, Ohioans for Workplace Freedom will be required to collect signatures from registered voters in 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. The signature total must equal 5% of the total vote cast in the county for the governor in the last election. The total number of signatures must equal 10% of the total vote for governor.

Many of the individuals and organizations who supported the successful Healthcare Freedom Amendment are involved in supporting this workplace amendment.

The AG letter and the amendment petitions submitted can be found at www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/Ballotinitiatives.

The figures don't lie - an economic case for Right-To-Work in Ohio

In responding to a post on a local Internet forum, I came across some rather startling information regarding right-to-work (RTW) states and Ohio.

It's from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research and it contrasts economic performance of RTW states and Ohio from 1995-2005. It says:

There is overwhelming evidence that Right to Work laws are economically beneficial. Here’s how David Littmann, the former senior vice president and chief economist for the Detroit-based Comerica Bank and current senior economist for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, summed up the evidence this February in testimony before the Michigan House Tax Committee on Restructuring: “Economic growth in right-to-work states has so convincingly and consistently eclipsed the average growth for non-right-to-work states that it makes the whole argument for workplace flexibility a non-controversial subject.”

Between 1995 and 2005, U.S. Department of Labor data show private-sector job growth in Right to Work states exceeded private-sector job growth in non-Right to Work states as a group by 79% and in Ohio alone by nearly 500%. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted U.S. Commerce Department data show real personal income growth in Right to Work states exceeded overall personal income growth in non-Right to Work states by 39% and exceeded Ohio’s meager increase by 142%. Meanwhile, U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that, from 1994 to 2004, the number of citizens covered by private health insurance grew by 11.5% in Right to Work states, slightly more than double the aggregate growth in non-Right to Work states. In Ohio, over the same period, the ranks of the privately insured actually declined by 0.2%.

I'm certain some people will take exception to the source of the information - the NILRR - because of its mission:

NILRR's primary function is to act as a research facility for the general public, scholars and students. It provides the supplementary analysis and research necessary to expose the inequities of compulsory unionism.

It publishes monographs, brochures and briefing papers designed to stimulate research and discussion with easy-to-read summaries of current events. NILRR also conducts nonpartisan analysis and study for the benefit of the general public.

It will render aid gratuitously to individuals suffering from government over-regulation of labor relations and will provide educational assistance to those individuals who have proved themselves worthy thereof.

But those who do so would be making a grave error. The data isn't from them - just compiled by them. The data is from the government: Department of Labor, Commerce Department and U.S. Census.

The linked article also looks at two states that enacted RTW laws: Idaho and Oklahoma. It's worth your time to examine the article and have some of the information on hand as people begin to discuss the pending Ohio Workforce Freedom Amendment.