Emailed to [email protected]:
State House Democrats imitated their counterparts in Wisconsin by fleeing the state and failing to do the job Hoosiers hired them to do: Meeting Indiana’s challenges head on. Instead of exercising bipartisanship they pulled a political stunt to kill HB 1468, or the Right to Work bill.
“Legislators are hired to serve the public, not special interests,” said State Chairman Sam Goldstein. “By ignoring the State’s business today, the House Democrats are serving a large campaign contributor, not Hoosiers. This is another reminder that Democrats are lacking on principles and leadership. Unacceptable political stunts are why principled people are investigating the Libertarian Party in historic numbers.”
Indiana legislators make an annual salary of $22,616, as well as $155 per diem in session or at a committee hearing. They receive $62 in expense pay every other day. (Source: Indianapolis Star)
“House Democrats should refund their per diem to the taxpayers for any days that are missed,” said Chris Spangle, LPIN Executive Director. “The message from taxpayers to lawmakers is clear: This was not an excused absence, and it should not be a paid vacation day.”
Media Contact: Chris Spangle, 317-920-1994
ABOUT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
The Libertarian Party is America, and Indiana’s, third largest political party founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. Its vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction.
The Libertarian Party of Indiana was formed in 1974, and has maintained ballot access since 1994. Sam Goldstein, an Indianapolis resident, currently serves as Chairman.
.
Libertarian Party of Indiana
156 E Market St.
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 920-1994
[email protected]
www.lpin.org
www.freehoosiers.com
Sam Goldstein, Chairman
Christopher Spangle, Executive Director
Paid for by the Libertarian Party of Indiana
I could agree with the refunding of per diems if they aren’t there to work.
David,
You write:
“It really comes down to who has ‘rights’ – the employer, the union, or the workers themselves?”
All three have “rights.” They may or may not be the same “rights.”
“If a shop was previously non-union, but a majority of the workers choose to unionize, they effectively impose their will on the minority and force them to become union members in those states where right-to-work laws don’t apply.”
See my comment @7 — that’s one of the “worst provisions of the National Labor Relations Act” I was referring to.
Absent NLRA/Wagner/Taft-Hartley, etc., there’s no particular reason why a majority vote of workers should mean a closed shop. The employer might very well refuse to bargain with the union. Or the agreement with the union that the employer reaches might not mandate a “closed shop.”
“Then there’s the matter of whether a person has the right to work if their union calls a strike or other work stoppage that they don’t agree with, even if the person and the employer are both in agreement that the person should be allowed to remain employed.”
Yes, he has that right — but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences arising from others’ exercising their own rights (such as removing him from membership in the union, and such as arriving at an exclusive labor agreement that leaves him jobless).
Thomas @ 6: It really comes down to who has “rights” – the employer, the union, or the workers themselves? If a shop was previously non-union, but a majority of the workers choose to unionize, they effectively impose their will on the minority and force them to become union members in those states where right-to-work laws don’t apply. Then there’s the matter of whether a person has the right to work if their union calls a strike or other work stoppage that they don’t agree with, even if the person and the employer are both in agreement that the person should be allowed to remain employed.
Unfortunately, this is one of those areas where everybody’s fists are connecting with everyone’s faces, metaphorically speaking, so I’m not entirely sure there’s a good, pure, big-L Libertarian wholesome answer here. I am, however, open to suggestion.
Gene @ 6,
“Leaving a meeting to deny a quorum is a legitimate method of stopping a bill from being considered, as is a filibuster.”
Yep.
As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what happened at the 2000 Libertarian national convention — adjourned sine die for lack of a quorum, pursuant to an intentional withdrawal by delegates for the purpose of bringing that outcome about.
The mis-named “right to work” laws are 100% anti-libertarian.
– They forbid employers to contract exclusively with a union for labor.
– If an employer contracts with a union for labor at all, they require that employer to give non-union workers the same pay, benefits, etc. as they give union workers.
– They require unions to represent workers who are not members of the union.
“Right to work” is nothing more or less than the flip side of the worst provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
The libertarian solution is to get government out of labor relations. If you’re a minarchist, the exception to that would be enforcing laws against crimes which would be crimes regardless of whether they were labor-related or not (assault, arson, that kind of thing).
The statement from the Indiana Libertarian Party is also objectionable in saying that those legislators who oppose a bill are not doing their job. Legislators are not required to pass every bill that is introduced.
Leaving a meeting to deny a quorum is a legitimate method of stopping a bill from being considered, as is a filibuster. If only our national legislators had come up with creative ways to prevent consideration of the bill authorizing the Iraq War, then they would have earned their salaries.
In the Objectivist Newsletter, Nathanial Branden pointed out the Right to Work Laws interfere with the freedom of workers and employers to make contracts, and noted that Objectivists oppose such laws.
Private sector unionism is voluntary in the fact that if you don’t want to join a union or pay union dues, you can seek work from a non-unionized employer.
Gov. Daniels may be sympathetic to this viewpoint, since he called on Republicans in the Indiana legislature to drop the Right to Work bill, and they have done so.
Right to work laws don’t take away the rights of workers to join a union.
The right of association includes the right not to associate as well.
Of course, you can say someone can just get another job, but in some cases that means they have to go into an entirely different line of work.
@Brian: It’s easy, and I’m not just saying that because Nevada is a right-to-work state. This is as good of start as any.
In many states, including Indiana, if you want to keep a job for a company that’s unionized (auto manufacturer, trash collector, etc.), you’re required to join the union and pay union dues. At the same time, if you run a company that’s already unionized, you’re required by law to engage in collective bargaining with the union, whether you’re personally inclined to or not. In other states, such as Nevada, you don’t – you’re free to join your coworkers’ union or not, and your employer is free to negotiate with the union (or not). The latter group of states are called “right to work” states. The legislation being proposed in the Indiana legislature would have made Indiana a “right to work” state if it passed.
If I had to fashion an argument that “right to work” laws are un-libertarian, it would probably resemble something like, “If I’m an employer and I wish to exclusively bargain with a union or trade association to provide labor in exchange for wages and benefits, without having to bargain with my individual employees, that should be my right.” I’m not sure I’d buy it, though.
Would you like to make a case as to why you, presumably, believe they are unlibertarian?
I know that most of the readers of this blog are libertarians. Can someone please explain to me how so-called “right to work legislation” is libertarian? It appears to increasingly supported by libertarians (or at least people who claim to be libertarian).