Right-to-work battle heats up 

The newest ground zero for the union battle is Indiana.  If things heat up as I suspect in Indiana, they are going to make Wisconsin’s antics last year look like a Boy Scout jamboree. 

The legislature in Indiana is now controlled by Republicans and the governor is a Republican by the name of Mitch Daniels.  They are determined to pass right-to-work legislation in their state, but as expected, the Democrats (backed by their unions) are having none of it.  What are these Democrats opposed to?  Losing their power.  That’s it.  The unions fuel their re-election chances, and the politicians fuel the unions’ power.  It’s a sickening cycle that costs taxpayers money and jobs.  What could Indiana GAIN if it passed right-to-work legislation?  Jobs, money, opportunity.  Take a look at some of the stats from a report on the effect of right-to-work legislation in Indiana.

• If Indiana had adopted such a law in 1977, by 2008 per capita income would have been $2,925 higher—equating to $11,700 higher for a family of four.  Indiana’s personal income in 2008 would have been $241.9 billion, 8.4 percent more than the actual $223.2 billion.

• Instead, Indiana has lost nearly $19 billion in annual income because of forced unionization.

• If the legislation is enacted this year, based on data on economic growth over the past three decades, that personal income per capita in 2021 would be $968 higher, or $3,872 higher for a family of four.  Over $6 billion, therefore, could potentially be added in relatively short order to the income of the residents of the Hoosier state.

The question is not: What do the people of Indiana have to lose by passing his law?  The question here is: What do the Democrat politicians and unions of Indiana have to lose?  The answer is power.  And the unions are particularly nervous because let’s say that Indiana does succeed in becoming a right-to-work state.  Slowly the unions lose their influence and Indiana becomes a more desirable place to do business, manufacturers look to expand there, people look for jobs there … and neighboring states start to notice that suddenly they aren’t quite as competitive and the people start to demand change.

Now … did you catch me on Cavuto last night on the Fox Business Channel?  I was telling him that in the private sector unions depend on force to maintain their memberships.  They need to be able to FORCE people to join unions or FORCE them to pay unions dues in order to survive.  Then I asked Cavuto “What do we call a man who has to force a woman into having sex with him.”  I didn’t get to see the expression on Cavuto’s face … but he didn’t answer the way I wanted him to.  He didn’t answer at all.  The answer, my friends, is “Rapist.” 

Unions are to private sector workers what a rapist is to his victim. 

Like I said, The Year of Talking Dangerously