February 1st, 2012

Indiana becomes Rust Belt's first right-to-work state

Posted by: Conservative Refocus
Published on February 1st, 2012 @ 09:21:42 pm , using 689 words

Posted in Events and Issues: Credible Resources

USA Today / By Mary Beth Schneider and Chris Sikic, The Indianapolis Star

Indiana's controversial right-to-work bill became Indiana's law Wednesday.

The Senate voted 28-22 Wednesday to pass the labor union bill as thousands of protesters packed Statehouse hallways shouting their disapproval. Thousands more lined up outside waiting to get in.

Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the "right to work" bill shortly thereafter without ceremony, making Indiana the 23rd state in the nation with the law.

Daniels and other Republican supporters characterized the measure as needed for Indiana to attract jobs.

"The only change will be a positive one," the governor said in a statement released by his office.

"Indiana will improve still further its recently earned reputation as one of America's best places to do business, and we will see more jobs and opportunity for our young people and for all those looking for a better life."

After the Senate vote, the protesters poured out of the Statehouse to join a rally on the Statehouse lawn and a march to Lucas Oil Stadium, where the Super Bowl will be held Sunday.

Under right-to-work laws, companies can no longer negotiate a contract with a union that requires non-members to pay fees for representation. The House earlier passed the measure 54-44.

Daniels said in 2004 as a candidate and again in 2006 as governor that he would not seek to add "right to work" to Indiana's labor laws. But he said he changed his mind, based on "eight years of evidence" that some companies will not locate in a state that doesn't have the law.

Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute, called this part of a "union-busting" agenda from a governor who seems to be still running for president. Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, called it Daniels' "parting shot."

Indiana did adopt "right to work" in 1957 but repealed it in 1965. Unions say it will lead to a downward spiral in wages and working conditions for all workers.

Supporters of the law, including the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, say it will let workers decide for themselves whether to financially back a union and will lead to more jobs.

Sen. Carlin Yoder, the Middlebury Republican who is the chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said for him "this bill is all about jobs." Unions, he said, will thrive despite it. And he said he apologized for all the "issues" lawmakers had to struggle with on it, an apparent reference to the constant protests against the bill.

"But the fact is this bill is worth it for Hoosiers who desperately need jobs," he said.

Acknowledging the passion of opponents, Yoder said there are plenty of people passionate about enacting "right to work."

Senate Minority Leader Vi Simpson, D-Ellettsville, disputed that, saying "there is no empirical evidence … that right to work creates one job."

"It's a downward spiral to lower wages and fewer benefits," she said.

The Legislature, she said, had rushed this bill, ignoring legislative procedures and traditions, to get it to Daniels before the Super Bowl.

"Was it worth it?" she repeatedly asked, saying they had pushed a divisive bill based on "myth and anecdote" and not fact.

Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Lafayette, said there may not be empirical evidence that "right to work" creates jobs, but there is no evidence that it will hurt Indiana either. He praised the protesters' passion on what he called a "contentious, heartfelt" issue but said he believes it will benefit workers as companies compete for their services.

In the end, he said, he believed that this would lead to "long-term prosperity for Indiana."

But Sen. Lindel Hume, D-Princeton, told the Senate that "what this bill truly does, when it comes right down to it, it makes it much more difficult for unions to have the clout they need to be able to improve working conditions, improve benefits and improve wages" for all workers, both union and non-union.