Firedoglake:
....Daniels, going back on his earlier word, supports the right-to-work legislation.....
Currently 22 states, almost all of them in the South and West, have right to work laws. New Hampshire passed one last year, but Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoed it and the legislature could not override him. You should really call them “right to work for less” laws, because they diminish the bargaining power of labor, empower management, and lead to wage cuts. Studies have shown that workers in right to work states make at least $1,500 and as much as $5,500 less for the same job than workers in states without those restrictions. And it’s designed to starve a union of revenue by creating a free rider problem, eventually dissolving the union entirely. First Daniels busted the public unions; now he wants to bust the private ones.
Labor leaders in Indiana plan to use many of the same tactics that delayed anti-union laws in Wisconsin and Ohio and stopped right to work in Indiana. They are already on the air with a law telling the truth about right to work. But it would probably come down to having Democrats leave the state and deny a quorum again. Daniels is supportive of the legislation this time, going back completely on his view from last year, and Republicans have large majorities in both houses of the legislature. Democrats could walk out, raise awareness about the law (which polls show a lot of flexibility on) and rally opposition, like they did in other states in the Midwest last year, including Indiana.
Mitch Daniels is a flip flopper on this issue--he was for it, against it, and now for it. He might want to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich on the phone and ask him what happened with SB 5.
But wait!!!! There is more!!!! Mitch Daniels is becoming even more anti-middle class worker.
BusinessInsider:
The NYT reports that Indiana governor Mitch Daniels is pushing legislation that will require workers who support a union to pay extra money to support the cost of representing workers who don't want to pay. Under federal labor law, a union is required to represent all the workers in a union, whether they opt to join the union or not. This means not only that all workers will receive the full pay and benefits negotiated by the union, but also that the union is required to represent workers who face any sort of disciplinary action.
Since the union is legally obligated to represent all workers, in most states workers are able to sign agreements with management that require all workers to pay for this representation. However, some states infringe on workers' freedom of contract and prohibit such agreements with management. These states require the workers who join a union to pay for the representation of workers who opt not to join......
YouTube
