Biz News Wire Reuters Spins Passage of Ind. Right-to-Work Bill with Liberal/Union Talking Points
The passage of "controversial" right-to-work legislation in Indiana is a "blow to organized labor." That's the spin by Reuters reporter Susan Guyett, who front-loaded her coverage of the bill's passage by focusing on anger from liberals and labor unions over the new legislation (emphases mine):
Indiana became the 23rd state to pass anti-union "right-to-work" legislation on Wednesday and the first in the nation's manufacturing heartland, dealing a blow to organized labor by allowing workers to opt out of paying union dues.
Indiana's Republican governor Mitch Daniels signed the legislation into law immediately after it was given final approval in the state Senate, making Indiana the first state to adopt such a measure since Oklahoma did so a decade ago.
Daniels, governor since 2005 and a prominent spokesman for Republicans nationally, said he decided Indiana needed the controversial new law after several businesses decided to locate elsewhere.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓"Seven years of evidence and experience ultimately demonstrated that Indiana did need a right-to-work law to capture jobs for which, despite our highly rated business climate, we are not currently being considered," he said in a statement after signing the bill.
Indiana is being closely watched by both major political parties in the presidential election debate over job creation and reviving the U.S. economy.
The Indiana state Senate vote of 28 to 22 was followed by calls of "shame, shame" from members of the public outside the chamber. Opponents of right-to-work call it "union busting" and say it will lower the wages of workers.
It wasn't until the 10th paragraph that Guyett quoted one of the bill's sponsors who explained what exactly the bill does (emphases mine):
Republican state Senator Carlin Yoder, the bill's main sponsor, said it would not prevent anyone from joining a union.
"It is simply allowing those individuals to decide for themselves if they want to pay union dues or not," Yoder said during the floor debate on Wednesday.
The Reuters piece provided liberal newspapers with a quick opportunity for copy-and-pasting a drive-by hit on Indiana's conservatives. For example, today's Washington Post excerpted from Guyett's Reuters story, but failed to include Yoder's defense of the bill and presented readers of its page A3 national news digest a thoroughly-skewed presentation of the issue (emphases mine):
‘Right to work’ bill becomes law
Indiana on Wednesday became the 23rd U.S. state to pass “right to work” legislation and the first in the nation’s manufacturing heartland, dealing a blow to labor by allowing workers to opt out of paying union dues.
Indiana’s Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, signed the legislation into law after it was approved, in a vote of 28 to 22, by the state Senate, making Indiana the first state to adopt such a measure since Oklahoma did so a decade ago.
Opponents say the measure will weaken unions and lower workers’ wages. The vote drew thousands of protesters to the state capital in Indianapolis.
Daniels said he decided Indiana needed the new law after several businesses moved out of the state.
— Reuters
While right-to-work is fundamentally about empowering individual's rights in the labor market, the liberal media are busy coloring the issue in ways that downplay or negate the issue as one of personal liberty.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yo9u would think ....
Submitted by red_dragon311 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:22pm.
That with a title like "Right to work" libs would nuts for it. Well now that I type it don't want to work they want a "right to the fruits of OTHER people's work"
Even the Bible argees Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."
The libs put up their usual
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:23pm.
The libs put up their usual fight for this laws defeat by "boycotting the legislature" .
It is always their way or the highway..they always pretend they are god and KNOW everything..
The big argument these union goons keep spewing
Submitted by kevtheweb on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:52pm.
You are too stupid to decide if you want to join our union or not. Therefore we will force you to join and pay us dues, even if you dont want our representation or if our representation provides you nothing.
Afterall, studies show that forced unionization increases wages, therefore we will force you to join for your own good.
This is a victory for all Indianans.
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:56pm.
It will severley reduce the amount of $$ that unions collect in dues and it will also reduce their rolls eventually.
Unions have outlived their usefulness in the vast majority of the jobs in this country. Just like trade guilds outlived their usefulness in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They went from supporting and assisting their trades to being barriers to entry and a fire-wall for older more established practitioners. The same is true of unions today. Rather than protect employees, they impede the company and make it more expensive for them to stay in business forcing many to move the jobs out of the country or close up shop all together.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Watch out, Indiana...
Submitted by ljacone on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:55pm.
...or Barry will sic the NLRB on you the same as he did here in South Carolina! That's what you get for trying to have jobs in your state!
There’s no controversy for the majority of Americans
Submitted by Mr_Priest on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:19pm.
There’s no controversy for the majority of Americans but since a minority of liberals oppose it, label it “controversial.”
Liberal Main stream Media Demagogues love to call something “controversial” when it’s something that questions leftist premises and dogmas. My definition of “controversial” would be the split between percentages of people who believe something is acceptable verses those who oppose it, the closer those two percentages are to each other, the more “controversial” the issue actually is. The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters think workers who do not belong to a union should be required by law to pay union dues if the company they work for is unionized. Seventy-four percent (74%) disagree and say non-union workers should not be forced to pay dues in a closed union shop.
However to an omnipotent media, everything they oppose in their lefty little view of the world but happens to be supported by a large majority of Americans must be labeled as “controversial” (or Racist).
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is you never know if they are genuine" —Abraham Lincoln
this goes beyond pro/anti union but people fail to realize it
Submitted by dmacleo on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:23pm.
always bugs me when union leaders think they have a right to force someone to join an organization as a condition of employment at the business THEY DON'T OWN.
if the union does right by its members the members will do right by it.
simple as that.
running scared
Submitted by ohio granny on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 5:39pm.
Unions and democrats are running scared. As more and more people see how bad the unions have been for jobs, more and more states are likely to become right to work. That is something the unions and democrats cannot tolerate. Where would unions come up with all the money to BUY democrat politicans? There are still some companies that need unions because of the way they treat their employees, but very, very few. In most instances unions do not look out for their members. They only take their money and use it for poliical puposes even if the members disagree with what or who they support.
The ugly truth is out there for all to see as to what the union agenda is. . As more people understand how unions ONLY support democrats they will continue to lose support.
Right to Work
Submitted by smith523 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 10:16am.
I work in a union environment, and let me be the first to say that the unions have long since been the #1 cause of job loss in America. They no longer protect workers from bad management, now they just protect losers, idiots and people who need to be fired and continue to ruin the United States. We pay union labor more than non-union labor but out of non-union we get better results, cheaper costs, and 99% of the time the job is completed faster and under budget than anticipated. with unions what do we get? EXCUSES, EXCUSES EXCUSES and the job is half assed (99% of the time has to be re-worked), the job is 100% of the time over budget and oh yeah if you need to find a union worker...look no further than the cafeteria, I'll bet you $5 he's on "break"!!!