Right-to-work could bring new jobs to Pennsylvania
Lacking the best ammunition, Pennsylvania is no sharpshooter at bagging new jobs, Matthew Wagner will tell you.
“We offer tax breaks,” he said. “Then we don't see the tax benefits for years, if ever.”
There's such an obviously better way, he says: Make Pennsylvania a “right-to-work” state. Like 24 others by now, as one by one, they have seen the light. Why else have foreign auto plants flocked to the Sun Belt, for example?
And what else but a right-to-work jurisdiction do most company decision-makers — 70 percent — say is the kind of place they'd prefer to locate?
To put it bluntly, it translates to weaker unions.
Workers can't be forced to join a union as a job condition or to pay union dues, a growing political sticking point. Millions in dues collections get bundled to elect candidates favored by union leadership but not necessarily by Joe Lunchbox. And in Pennsylvania, compulsory dues collections approach a half-billion dollars a year.
All walks of life would prosper more if we went right-to-work, says Wagner.
As communication director — aw, heck, lobbyist — for Carlisle-based Pennsylvanians for Right to Work Inc., he points out to lawmakers in Harrisburg that the state of Indiana, for example, attracted 91 businesses and 5,000 jobs in the first six months after it went right-to-work a few years back. Oklahoma reaped 7,800 new jobs; average household income rose 50 percent in a decade.
“Right-to-work states show four times the job creation of compulsory union states,” Wagner contended in an interview after addressing a small Tea Party crowd in Greensburg. “Their average unemployment is lower by a full percentage point.”
Such numbers are disputed, of course, by organized labor's own statisticians.
Wagner claimed living costs average 30 percent lower in right-to-work states even as job openings increase. Indiana's new jobs, after the change in law, allegedly paid $3 an hour more than the old. Inevitable result: long-term population shifts. And political shifts. Some 400,000 more Americans have moved to right-to-work states yearly vs. the other way around. “No wonder we're losing our children,” said Wagner, touching a sensitive spot in a locale of aging population.
The state with the lowest unemployment rate now, under 4 percent, is North Dakota, It has an oil boom, yes, but it's a right-to-work state. So is Texas, far outshining onetime champion, heavily union-carded California, in job creation.
Newest in the right-to-work ranks is Michigan, a shocker. Home of the United Auto Workers and bankrupt Detroit, Michigan under Republican leadership evidently made up its mind to quit letting Big Labor do the political driving.
Pennsylvania and Ohio seem likeliest to become the 25th and 26th right-to-work states, in Wagner's view.
Both houses of the legislature in Harrisburg are Republican-controlled. Both have bills in committee (S. 1073 and H. 50). Gov. Tom Corbett has said he'd sign a right-to-work bill if it reaches his desk. It could be a great campaign issue in 2014.
Legislators tell Wagner they hear surprisingly little from constituents on the matter. It's not seen as “sexy.” One said, “We need people to push us for us to push this.”
Jack Markowitz is a Thursday columnist for Trib Total Media. Email email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Last-minute China worries derailed Fed’s rate hike plans, minutes reveal
- Volkswagen executive Horn sidesteps blame in emissions scandal
- CMU showcases its lengthy list of fledgling companies at venture event
- Sluggish wage growth may sap retail spending during winter holidays
- Other segments nudge Alcoa to slim profit
- Fed insight gives stocks room to run; S&P 500 regains 2,000 mark
- Energy efficiency goes mainstream with help of regulations, demand
- Rice, Gulfport team on Utica shale pipeline system
- Energy Spotlight: Tom Lawry
- Credit bureau Experian keeps info on cellular firm’s customers
- Power plants challenged by carbon capture and storage