 A veto override of the right-to-work bill in the Missouri General Assembly would
make Missouri the 26th state in which workers can’t be forced to pay a union as
a condition of employment.
Right-to-work allows each worker to choose whether to support a union — a
concept most voters in Missouri and across the country agree with.
To deal with widespread support for right-to-work, union bosses use populist
front groups to flip public opinion by misrepresenting what right-to-work laws
do.
Their attempts have failed in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin since 2012, but
unions are sticking with the same strategy in Missouri.
RELATED: Unions hide union label in Missouri right-to-work fight
For example, a Preserve Middle Class Missouri ad warns right-to-work “has been
created by top executives” as a means of “taking away our voice” to negotiate
for wages and benefits.
“Workers in right-to-work states make on average $1,500 less per year than
workers in states that allow employees to bargain for fair wages and benefits,”
the ad asserts.
Employees are allowed to bargain for wages and benefits in right-to-work states,
and right-to-work does nothing to make it more difficult to join a union.
But then, Preserve Middle Class Missouri — which is run by the Teamsters union
and United Food & Commercial Workers Local 655 — isn’t likely to come out and
say, “Right-to-work is bad because it lets workers choose whether to pay us.”
Using research from the AFL-CIO and Economic Policy Institute, Preserve Middle
Class Missouri insists right-to-work laws result in lower wages, reduced
benefits and higher risk of death on the job.
Carpenters union front The Committee to Protect MO Families makes the same
arguments, relying on the same EPI and AFL-CIO research. This is no accident.
AFL-CIO is the nation’s largest union coalition, and EPI is a union-funded
Washington, D.C., think tank whose board of directors is stacked with many of
America’s wealthiest labor bosses.
[to top of second column] |
 EPI’s wage figures have been disputed by researchers at the
conservative Heritage Foundation, who recently found that
private-sector pay is higher in right-to-work states when adjusting
for cost of living.
Regardless of the numbers, union arguments against right-to-work
always start from the false assertion right-to-work takes away
workers’ ability to unionize and collectively bargain through
unions.
Right-to-work simply lets workers choose whether to support
unions; workers in right-to-work states are free to form or join
unions if they think unions are the best way to improve their wages,
benefits or workplace safety.
As right-to-work proponents have pointed out, it’s not uncommon for
right-to-work states to see higher union membership growth than
forced unionism states.
So why are union leaders so vehemently opposed to right-to-work? The
unions fighting right-to-work in Missouri haven’t responded to
Watchdog requests for comment.
Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation, told Watchdog there’s a simple reason unions try
to block right-to-work laws.
Workers in states without right-to-work “have no way to hold union
officials accountable about how their money is spent,” Semmens said
in an emailed statement.
When workers have to choose between paying the union and finding
another job, it’s easier for union leaders to give themselves hefty
salaries with money from workers’ paychecks.
“Unfortunately union bosses have gotten used to living large on
forced union dues, and are apparently scared that when workers are
given a choice they will decide that paying union dues is a bad use
of their hard-earned money,” Semmens said.
Jim Kabell, the Teamsters union officer in charge of Preserve Middle
Class Missouri, was paid a total of $177,081 last year. UFCW 655
president David Cook, Preserve Middle Class Missouri’s president,
was paid $177,653 last year.
At the offices of Carpenters’ District Council of Greater St. Louis
and Vicinity — the union behind Committee to Protect MO Families —
union staffers are paid an average salary of $88,680.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
