Does passage of right to work benefit the average Indiana citizen?
Why are the Republicans so eager to pass right to work? How will it improve the standard of living of the average Indiana citizen?
In 1957 when the Republicans had a clear majority they passed right to work. In 1965, Indiana became the first state to repeal the legislation.
Since 1965, Toyota, Honda and Subaru have built auto plants in Indiana, which provided good-paying jobs with full benefits. Numerous Japanese parts makers followed, which also produced many jobs.
Gov. Mitch Daniels recently said on Indiana Business News that a particular automaker did not come to Indiana because we did not have right to work. Then why did all the other automakers come to Indiana?
Professor Michael Hicks of Ball State University reported in his study that it is difficult to “disentangle the effect of right-to-work laws” from strong business policies promoted by Indiana. Forbes magazine lists Indiana as the sixth most friendly state in which to do business. Companies consider many factors other than right-to-work when locating in Indiana: The excellent highway system, our central location, many skilled workers, low business taxes.
So what is really behind this urgency to pass right to work? Is this just a case of some ideologues poking a stick in the eye of the unions with the hope of crushing them?
If the balance of power is destroyed between management and labor, how does that benefit the average citizen? If one side can make all the decisions, what recourse does the average citizen have? How is that situation any different from having “big government” telling us what to do?
Do we want out tax base destroyed with the introduction of a bunch of low-paying jobs, which in turn could affect the pay standards of the job you have now? Do Indiana citizens want our state to become like Mississippi and many other southern states that have deplorable educational systems?
This important decision should not be in the hands of a one-sided majority.
GEORGE W. PIFER
Angola
