More than 11 years ago, union operatives submitted an internal report to the AFL-CIO Executive Council that assessed how Big Labor might destroy existing state Right to Work laws and stymie the National Right to Work Committee’s increasingly effective efforts to pass new laws. [..]

Today, relatively few Americans remember that in 1933 Congress enacted legislation obliging businesses to form committees with their competitors to write “codes” prescribing the “rules of fair competition” for their industry. Businesses that refused to report how much they charged customers or charged less than was mandated by a code could be subjected to fines of up to $500 per “offense,” with each day considered a separate offense.

The 1933 law, known as the National Recovery Act (NRA), was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court two years later. But heavy-handed federal attempts to prevent “excessive” or “cutthroat” competition among American businesses continued for decades.

Forced Unionism Reduces Employers’ Ability to Furnish Pension Coverage

Forced-unionism apologists often concede that job growth, both overall and private-sector in particular, is far more brisk in Right to Work states than in non-Right to Work states. But after making such concessions, they invariably claim that the jobs created in Right to Work states aren’t good jobs with good benefits.

However, data compiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in a long-term, ongoing study of the trends in private-sector pension access in the 50 states debunk one of

For many years, U.S. Labor Department data have shown that states with Right to Work laws on the books have far faster private-sector job growth than states that do not protect employees from federal policies authorizing the termination of workers for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

The ideals of an open society require the protection of freedom of choice in personal, political and economic relationships. Federal policies that force employees to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment directly restrict the individual employee’s economic freedom. And their effective scope is actually much wider.

A recent paper by Jeff Vincent, research director of the Division of Labor Studies at Indiana University, grossly misrepresents the facts about Right to Work laws and the economic and moral arguments that have been made in support of enacting such a law in Indiana.

Study prepared for union front group uses twisted facts and logic to dupe media and promote anti-worker legislation designed to stifle worker choice

Washington, DC. (January 6, 2006) – The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just released a paper that exposes a dishonest research study prepared for the union front group “American Rights at Work” (ARAW) as the product of “academic apologists for top-down organizing” who “ignore basic facts” and rely on “twisted logic” to promote its lobbying agenda.

Academic Apologists For Top-Down Organizing Ignore Basic Facts, Twist Logic

Recently, AFL-CIO agents across America have been breathlessly promoting a study of union organizing campaigns issued by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development.

It’s hard to put a positive spin on Michigan’s economic track record in recent years, or on the state’s prospects for the future assuming no significant change in current policies.

Between 1994 and 2004, Michigan ranked dead last among the 50 states in nonfarm employment growth. The average state enjoyed a percentage job gain more than two-and-a-half times as great as Michigan’s.1

Just in the past three years, the Wolverine State has lost 40,000 young people in the job market due to out-migration to other states, according to David Littmann, senior economist for the Midland, Mich.-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.