Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:40 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Unions expect right-to-work will cost them members

    Indiana unions prepare for drop in membership after passage of right-to-work legislation

    Fantasy Finance

    INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- After losing their fight against right-to-work legislation, labor organizers are making a desperate bid on shop room floors and at union halls to persuade members to keep paying their union dues and avoid crippling labor's influence in Indiana.

    Factory workers, painters, electricians and other workers in the state's 179,000-member unionized work force are being called into meetings to hear impassioned pitches on why they should keep authorizing deductions from their paychecks even though the law means they no longer have to do so.

    "We're gonna push them pretty hard and let them know this is what our services provide," said Brett Voorhies, legislative director for the United Steelworkers District 7, which has 45,000 active members in Indiana and Illinois. He said he has met with members of 200 locals in Indiana since supporters of the pro-business legislation begin planning their push for right-to-work last year.

    But some union members are clearly tempted to drop out. Some who are politically conservative resent labor's campaign donations to Democrats; others may feel they just need the extra money.

    "We're concerned at this point at how that's going to affect us," said Kelly Hugunin, unit president of United Steelworkers Local 1999 in Indianapolis. "I've had several people say 'Yeah, I'm still going to pay my dues.' And there's been some that have said they're not going to pay."

    How many members decide to become "free riders," as non-dues payers are called, will determine whether the passage of the right-to-work law here turns out to be a mostly symbolic setback for organized labor or a grave financial and political blow.

    No comprehensive data exist on how much active union membership dropped in the 22 states that adopted the law in earlier years. But after right-to-work passed in Oklahoma in 2001, about a quarter of union members stopped providing financial support.

    Hugunin says he fears his local could lose 30 to 50 percent of its paying members.

    "I've had a lot of folks come to me and ask. 'What's going to happen?' as far as dealing with members and nonmembers," he said.

    Indiana's experience is being closely watched across the nation because it is the first state in the manufacturing Rust Belt to adopt the controversial law, which says that workers in a unionized workplace cannot be required to pay for union representation. The other right-to-work states are clustered in the conservative South and Mountain West.

    Supporters of right to work, which was approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature here two weeks ago, say the measure will draw more employers to the state and increase jobs. But union officials say the measure just lowers wages and was intended to punish unions for supporting Democratic candidates. Organizers say the money they lose will reduce their ability to provide services to their members and to organize workplaces.

    In addition to negotiating for wages and benefits, the unions help workers with grievance filings and safety violations at work. Some also help provide job training for workers who want new skills and help cover lost wages while they are at the training sessions. Such benefits might be unaffordable if union income drops.

    Voorhies said the key problem is that workers will get the same services on their jobs whether they pay the union dues or not.

    "I don't see any service we cannot offer them," he said. "Everything from grievance representation to political representation and lobbying and all that; it's a service provided through dues."

    However, he added, "If folks keep opting out, sooner or later we could go defunct and there would not be a union there to provide those services."

    Terry Bowman, an auto worker from Ypsilanti, Mich., who has been rallying support for a national right-to-work law, said many politically conservative workers have long objected to the idea that some of their dues go for campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. In Indiana, the Democratic candidate for governor in 2012, John Gregg, reported raising $1.7 million last year, much coming in large donations from unions.

    Bowman said unions would provide better services to members if they had to work harder for their support.

    "I hear all the time from union members extremely unhappy with the representation they get from their unions," he said. "Unions don't have to compete for your loyalty."

    Union organizers said they are worried about tensions growing in workplaces as members decide whether they will pay or not. The big tests for Indiana's unions will be at car companies like Chrysler represented by the United Autoworkers in central Indiana and at the steel plants in northwest Indiana, near Chicago, that are organized by the United Steel Workers.

    "I'm kind of worried that tempers flare between folks. We could see some fights. I don't want to see it come to that," Hugunin said.

    Oklahoma AFL-CIO President Jimmy Curry, said unions there have avoided severe losses by maintaining good communication with workers and providing the workplace help they wanted most.

    "We were doing it before and we're doing it still," he said. "Right-to-work didn't change any of that."

    ___

    Tom LoBianco can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/tomlobianco

     
    • Templar  •  3 months ago
      Oh, I get it. Because they will no longer be coerced, forced and intimidated into paying dues to their union masters. How unfair.
    • Rak  •  Kahului, Hawaii  •  3 months ago
      Have the Unions driven our Jobs Overseas? The democrats brought in the free trade agreements with NAFTA they have sold out the American Workers,Its was Clinton who did this to our Nation! Just look what the community organizer is doing in S.Carolina Against Boeing&U wonder why jobs have gone overseas? He stacked the deck of the NLRB Board to force big buisness to yeild to the demands of organized labor! Sh!+cago style politics,al capone style!
      Drink UR Koolaid kids!
      • melissa 3 months ago
        NAFTA began with Ronald Reagan and was signed by George H.W. Bush. Only after it was approved by the Senate in 1993 was it signed into law by Clinton. Someone should check their history first.
      • age 92 3 months ago
        Keep in mind that the American Unions priced American Manufacturing completely out of the free Market. In order to satisfy the American Consumer with a fair price on products, American Companies relocated overseas starting in the mid '60's. The EU State experienced the same due to Union Demands and private industry moved to Asia. Sad to sate but present American Products still made in the US costs between 25 to 50% more than the same product made in places like Mexico, China, India and a host of other nations..
      • Tom 3 months ago
        Melissa, evidently your union didn't pay Clinton enough to veto the Free Trade agreement.
        FreeTrade sounds good in theory. The problem was that it wasn't FAIR TRADE. There should be ONE rule book for ALL countries to sign on to. NO EXCEPTIONS. When you allow deviation, you also allow corruption.
    • Tom  •  Lima, Ohio  •  3 months ago
      Funny, if the unions do what they tout there will be no problem maintaining members contributing dues. However the unions that take the money and do not measure up will be the ones that will suffer. Simply a good product or service provider will advance and those who don't will fail. Now the unions are on a equal basis of the companies to succeed or fail on thier services thus making the workers the winners on this law.
      • TT 3 months ago
        That is not necessarily true if the non union workers get the same benefits the dues paying member gets. They are just freeloaders. If enough decide to not pay the union will go bankrupt providing services to the non payers.
    • The Donald  •  3 months ago
      I am not a fan of unions, hoewever if you are union and don't agree with your union donating to certain political partys you do have a choice. It's called "Beck objector status" Unions don't share this with their members, but the US supreme court ruled that if union members choose, they may have that portion of their dues used for political action committees be reimbursed to them. Just send a letter to your union requesting Beck Objector Status! The Union is then obligated to refund your money!
      • Tom 3 months ago
        Be carefull, your steward may not take your grievences seriously if you file. You may find yourself tranferred to the company "chit job" as a result.
      • Doug 3 months ago
        Tom is right, The union tells you they only spend $1.68 per year of your dues on pacs, so they give you that as a reduction and don't consider you worth representing anymore.
      • The Donald 3 months ago
        I worked as a UAW and SEIU member and never needed representation. Sure I had bosses who were jerks and bully's but if I had a complaint I just took it to his boss. Everyone new who I was and my work ethic. The only issues I ever had was my Union brothers harassing me for working too hard and that's easy to deal with!
    • K diddy  •  3 months ago
      It's about FREEDOM. I should not have to be forced to join a group if I don't want to!
      • M5 3 months ago
        You can always go work somewhere else. We should have the freedom to create an organization with rights. It's called freedom, Dip!
      • A Yahoo! User 3 months ago
        M5 , Absolutely Right !!!!!!!!!!!!!
      • john z 3 months ago
        You want the right to work like a slave for peanuts and no rights. Go work in China.
    • 49th st  •  3 months ago
      Greece, a country of over 90% affiliation with unions.
    • Steven  •  New Braunfels, Texas  •  3 months ago
      I live in Texas, we have the "Right to Work" law in effect.
      After multiple approaches by Union Reps., I finaly sat with one and compared benefits of Union to what I have where I work now, "Open Shop".
      When all was said and done, I actually took home more money than the Union workere did. I do not pay for my own vacation, I do not pay for my own HealthCare, I have as many Paid Holidays as they do, I have a retirement thru the company that I can add to if I wish or only have what they deposit. I have NEVER relyed upon someone else to negotiate my pay or to keep my job for me.
      I am sure Unions are OK for some, but at least I Have A CHOICE !
      Whether Open Shop or Union, the jobs available are at the customers discretion, NOT of Union Influence. I find the level of workmanship is no less in an Open Shop vs. Union.
      So, my choice is not to pay the dues to others for something I can get on my own............
      • R 3 months ago
        you are an exception being in Texas. You must live in a large city..
      • K diddy 3 months ago
        Same with me and I live in a mid size town. It's about FREEDOM
      • Brian 3 months ago
        No worker does not pay for for Healthcare that is a crock.
    • J M  •  Chicago, Illinois  •  3 months ago
      And that means the KICK BACKS (contributions) to the DNC will be down
    • Robert  •  Los Angeles, California  •  3 months ago
      Just another milestone in the union’s long match into oblivion. They are static institutions in a dynamic economy. In 1953 the unions represented 35.3% of the labor force. Right now they probably represent 10-11% of the labor force. The unions can only operate if the company or the institutions that have unions have a monopoly or near monopoly. That way they can pass their above market labor costs to the consumer. Once the company or institution looses its monopoly the union is basically finished. It is only a matter of time. They can lose that monopoly through foreign competition, more efficient domestic competitors, poor management, advances in technology, and job creation in right to work states rather than union dominated states.

      You can see that the unions are toast in the following industries: retail (as shown by the landslide vote against the union by Target employees), automobiles, airlines, steel, coal, general manufacturing, post office, hotels, construction, trucking, etc.

      In addition, almost all of the poor working conditions that unions that caused the unions to organize in the first place have been codified into law so that the reason for a union has greatly diminished. These include minimum wages, health, safety, working conditions, and holidays. The only thing is to get more pay and benefits for doing less work.

      They are also starting to loose ground in unions representing public employees because the people are fed up with the unions over reaching greed. The unions have reached a point where they can not pass on their above market labor costs to the tax payer.
    • SethC  •  Phoenix, Arizona  •  3 months ago
      This is the only thing that will save us is God Himself or no unions, glad they are getting less members, hope it scares them.
    • RV  •  3 months ago
      Hmmm, unions don't like good labor law, not becasue it hurts labor, but there own self interest.

      Right to work legislation may hurt unions but so what. Is it better to have good law and no unions or draconian laws and inneffective and expensive unions?
    • A Yahoo! User  •  Romeoville, Illinois  •  3 months ago
      I'm a 35 year member of IAM retired from Caterpillar.
      Right to work is great.
      It will keep the unions more in touch with their members instead of just lining their own pockets.
    • Megameat  •  Washington, District of Columbia  •  3 months ago
      Boo, hoo, hoo!. Now, union bosses cannot extort money from workers., Instead, they have to make their case to individual employees for the payment of union dues into their coffers. How unfair. Obama's thugs no longer can steal the sweat from the working class brow to fund television ads to re-elect the Dear Leader. I tell ya "It's just not fair".
    • rickeyrhodes  •  Champaign, Illinois  •  3 months ago
      cry me a river
    • caseus  •  3 months ago
      "keep paying their union dues" --- that is what it is all about --- they're private taxation system
    • cyasukr  •  3 months ago
      You should NEVER be forced to join a union. If the union is good, people will want to join.
    • 49th st  •  3 months ago
      Darn, the union CEO's and management teams will no longer be able to say they are a proud member of the 1%
    • Megameat  •  Washington, District of Columbia  •  3 months ago
      Good.
    • Iwillcrushjon  •  Seattle, Washington  •  3 months ago
      Darn right they want to get out. Who wants to tie their boat with a dirty union? Unions should be abolished. Why does this country do everything it can to discourage free enterprise?
    • Muncha Pusay  •  Cleveland, Ohio  •  3 months ago
      After 25 years in a Union, my advice to Unions that want to survive and grow.
      Make unions acceptable to rational people.
      Negotiate wages and benefits for members.
      Negotiate safe working conditions and hours.
      Stop spending members dues money on politicians and telling members who or what to vote for.
      Stop trying to tell business owners how to run their business.
      Stop defending undefensable on the job offenses by union members. Unions have a responsibility to provide skilled, honest, and ethical workers.

    RATES

    Stay in touch with Yahoo! Finance

      YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER

    Subscribe

    [X]

    How to subscribe

    Roll over each section to subscribe using Add to My Yahoo! or RSS Feed feeds.

    Yahoo! News offers dozens of RSS feeds you can read in My Yahoo! or using third-party RSS news reader software. Click here to find out more about RSS and how you can use it with Yahoo! News.