EDITORIAL: What's the purpose of 'right-to-work'?

OUR VIEW: Here’s one we haven’t heard: The business community doesn’t need government telling its job creators what kinds of contracts they can negotiate with employees.

Turn on your television today, and Gov. Mitch Daniels likely will tell you why Indiana needs a “right-to-work” law. An advertisement starring the governor is in heavy rotation across the state.

In the ad, Daniels says 22 states with right-to-work legislation “are adding jobs and income a lot faster than those that don’t.”

He says, “We get cut out of a third of all deals because we don’t provide workers the protection known as right to work.”

The governor says Hoosiers support right to work “2 to 1,” though we doubt its popularity in Howard County.

Legislation introduced during a joint House and Senate committee meeting Friday would make it a misdemeanor crime for an employer to require workers to pay union dues as a condition of their employment. But is that reflective of the values Statehouse Republicans, conservatives and tea partiers tell us they hold so dear?

As Congress was debating whether to save Chrysler and General Motors from liquidation in 2008, economist Howard Wial of the Brookings Institution found 22 percent of Kokomo’s employment was in auto and auto-parts industries. Most are union jobs.

Add in the folks at alloy-maker Haynes International, tradesmen such as carpenters and electricians, teachers at our five public school systems, firefighters, police officers and other city workers and, well, there are a lot of union members in Howard County. Unions despise right to work. They say it’s an attack on working families.

It’s not surprising then that House Republicans representing manufacturing areas are feeling pressure from union constituents to buck GOP leaders and oppose right to work. Republican Reps. Tom Dermody of LaPorte, Ed Soliday of Valparaiso and Ron Bacon of Boonville have said publicly they will vote no on the measure.

Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo, said Thursday he’s leaning toward supporting the bill. “But I need to see the final language,” he said. “It needs to get farther along in the process.”

Rep. Mike Karickhoff, R-Kokomo, made similar statements during last year’s right-to-work debate. He and VanNatter appear to be on the fence.

If they need an old-fashioned, conservative reason to oppose right to work, if other Republicans need one – those who represent areas that provide 15.6 percent of Howard County’s work force; those with constituents in Miami, Tipton, Cass, Hamilton and Grant counties – how about this?

The business community doesn’t need government telling its job creators what kinds of contracts they can negotiate with employees.

Haynes International filed for bankruptcy in 2007. With concessions from the steelworkers union, it emerged in 2008 with a three-year, $25 million reinvestment plan, 442 employees in Kokomo and Lebanon, 798 in the United States and 900 worldwide.

Chrysler entered briefly into bankruptcy in 2009. With the help of concessions from the United Auto Workers, it was able to report Wednesday a 26.2 percent increase in sales for 2011.

Unions in Kokomo and across the state work collaboratively with management to hold down operating costs, increase profits, prepare our children for college and the workplace, and protect us from fire and crime.

So what’s the purpose of right to work again?