A Brief Explanation of the "Empowerment Zone" Debate

To the abject horror of labor unions, Governor Bruce Rauner used his State of the State Address to advocate for the creation of local "empowerment zones." Kentucky is cited as an example of these empowerment, or "right-to-work" zones. 

In Kentucky, several counties have elected to use their home rule powers to become "right-to-work" counties and thereby end mandatory union membership and dues collections within their borders. Workers are permitted to voluntarily join unions in these counties, but they can't be fired or compelled to pay "fair share" dues if they don't join the union. 

Unions believe that federal law only grants states and territories with the authority to pass "right to work" laws. To date, 24 states have opted to pass such laws. But defenders of "right-to-work" contend that the United States Supreme Court has not ruled against local "right-to-work" zones, and that the law is at best favorable, and at worst silent on the matter. Right-to-work supporters are encouraging local counties and municipalities to establish "right-to-work" zones by ordinance in the belief that any eventual litigation will redound in their favor. 

Brace yourself because this fight will be epic.

Unions are concerned that the "right-to-work" concept will reduce union membership and financial muscle. Their concern is justified based upon what has happened in states like Oklahoma, Michigan, and Wisconsin. According to unions, "right-to-work" drives down wages and hurts "working families." But the evidence is mixed. In one sense, average wages are lower in "right-to-work" states. However, proponents of "right-to-work" point out that many "right-to-work" states are in the south, which is less economically developed and generally benefits from a lower cost of living than other regions. Proponents further argue that studies controlling for this regionalism provide evidence that wages are slightly higher in "right-to-work" states. 

But the two central arguments offered in favor of "right-to-work" are constitutional and economic. First, opponents of forced union participation and mandatory dues payments believe that such requirements are a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. The second argument is that "right-to-work" laws generate higher levels of economic activity, business investment, and job creation. Proponents cite statistics as evidence of these trends. 

The theory behind the creation of local "empowerment zones" is that states with pro-union legislatures won't pass "right to work" laws, so the best way to proceed is to bypass the legislatures by passing local ordinances. If businesses begin flocking to the local jurisdictions with investment and jobs, then other local jurisdictions, and eventually the states themselves, will be pressured to enact "right-to-work" laws.

There is a political dimension that goes beyond the economic arguments. Eliminating forced unionization and union dues will weaken what some believe to be the disproportionate amount of power held by public sector unions over Illinois politics. It will also harm the Democratic Party, which has emerged as the primary beneficiary of union money. And that's how a blue state begins to turn purple. That's also why there will be fierce opposition to any efforts to give "right-to-work" a foothold in Illinois. 

These are the general arguments that will be heard over the coming months and, perhaps, years. The outcome is unknown, but in a complete break with some of his avidly pro-union predecessors, Governor Rauner will make sure that the broader debate over "right-to-work" occurs in Illinois. 

Michigan Teachers Finding it Hard to Leave Union

You should read this disturbing Watchdog.org story about unsavory tactics employed by the Michigan Education Association to prevent their members from leaving the ranks of the union now that Michigan is a right-to-work state.

Bottom line - the union will only allow members to provide notice of their desire to opt-out during the month of August. Teachers can choose to leave during any other month at a price - the union will sick a collection agency on them and ruin their credit rating: 

“People who thought they could exercise their right-to-work rights have unfortunately gotten a rude awakening that (the MEA is) now sending collection notices home,” said Vincent Vernuccio, director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “If they have not opted out during the narrow window during August, they’re sending a collection agency after them.”

And the union was in no hurry to inform it's members about the limited annual opt-out window:

“Early September, we got an e-bill statement from the union treasurer, the dues statement for the year,” Jelenek said. “We said, ‘What? We’re not joining.’ We found it very convenient that we got it right at the beginning of September, when all the powers that be knew we had to do something in August.”

Some members want to leave the MEA to seek continued representation elsewhere. Here's an example of one teacher who made this choice:

Other than that, not a lot has changed, he said. He has since joined the Association of American Educators, through which he receives better benefits at a fifth to a sixth of the cost, he said. 

“If MEA were to offer better than AAE, for a lower price, I’d probably jump back with them,” he said. “I teach economics. It’s really dollars and cents.”

Everyone should have a basic right to freely associated (or dissociate) with any organization they choose. I get the "fair share" arguments advanced by unions, but people shouldn't be compelled (or in this case bamboozled) into an affiliation that they don't want. 

I can support the notion that an employee can choose to accept certain benefits (wage increases, health care) negotiated by a union and be required to retain membership. They should also be provided with a right to opt-out of both to seek representation elsewhere or negotiate on their own behalf.