House Leaders Respond to Governor Veto of Right to Work Legislation
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 05:23PM 
CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) offered the following statement in response to the Governor’s veto on House Bill 474, Right to Work legislation.
House Speaker William O’Brien
“It’s certainly disappointing that the Governor would put loyalty to union bosses ahead of creating jobs for New Hampshire residents and improving the state’s economy. Right to Work means more jobs for the state, particularly in the manufacturing sector, where we have struggled. New Hampshire would become a magnet for employers who are seeking Right to Work states to grow their companies, as we would be the only state north of Virginia with this important protection for workers and incentive for businesses. Because the House is so strongly concerned with creating good, new jobs in New Hampshire, we will work to overturn this poorly considered veto by the Governor.”
House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt
“Right to Work is a key plank in the Republican platform and is also a cornerstone item to restoring the New Hampshire Advantage. By passing this bill by wide majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans in the legislature have made clear our commitment to growing our economy and stopping efforts by Democrats, like Governor Lynch, to stifle job creation. Make no mistake, Right to Work will mean more New Hampshire citizens will be able to find good employment. Recently, the CEO of Boeing – one of the 50 largest companies in America – said they want to move to Right to Work states. Every day that we don’t have Right to Work is another day that we are missing the opportunity to bring jobs here. That’s why House Republicans will join together to override this veto and expand economic growth.”
Reader Comments (9)
"We find that the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state."
So, basically, Boeing (and other large companies) see an easy way to whack 6%-8% off their costs at the expense of the workers who actually produce the product they sell. While I can't blame then for trying to save money (despite the fact that they have sucked at the Defense Department teat for decades), I do have to be outraged at politicos that are willing to throw their constituents under the bus all in the name of campaign funding. I guess it's easy to sacrifice when you are sacrificing someone ELSE's future.
http://www.epi.org/resources/datazone_rtw_index/
You don't seem to mind throwing the numerous unemployed non-union workers under the bus for more contributions from the unions to the Democrat Party hacks!
Work Hard Have Fun
Bob DeMaura
The big difference is I'm not responsible to represent anyone but myself. When people run for office promising to work for their constituents but then listen to the big pockets of corporate america to the detriment of those same people, I would call that fraud. 2/3 of people in NH support the rights of unions to organize; it is obvious that the state republicans are only representing their own interests and those of corporate America and not the people of New Hampshire.
Also, please stop the hypocrisy concerning union contributions to Democratic party members. All I hear is republicans crying about the unfair advantage unions give Democratic politicians all the while accepting unlimited contributions from corporate "citizens". Companies are NOT citizens and thus should NOT be allowed to essentially buy elections. Unions, who use the DUES paid by members (so the nonunion scabs don't pay anything) to support candidates are not even in the same ballpark. Union members are actual people; companies are not.
Proof is in the numbers with union membership in the private sector down in the single digits as a percent of the total workforce. It is marginally over 10% when you add in Public Sector employees and the state workers were recently forced to pay agency fees to the unions causing many to just give in and let the union bosses rape their paychecks for contributions to the Democrat party hacks and the causes they support. The Governor made a slight change in how supervisors were classified and that caused the numbers to go to the unions favor and force agency fees.
I thought Democrats were for choice, why not choosing who they associate with at work? Why force people to join unions? To make sure no one works any harder or more efficiently than the worst worker in the group! A drive to mediocrity is what unions get us! It is why the private sector businesses have such a low union membership rate, they end up going out of business if they have union employees!
If you think that it isn't big labor union bosses from outside the state using their money to influence Democrat politicians then perhaps you could explain what SEIU-Porter was doing down in DC this past week? Gov Lynch owes the union plenty if he plans to stay relevant to the Democrat party, he is owned by the union bosses and does their bidding or he would let RTW through since only >12% of the total NH population is in unions!
Did you see the statistics recently about the Party of the RICH! yes the Democrats are now officially the party of the RICH, as their average income exceeds the average income of Republicans. With Government jobs over $100K jumping from 800 to 18,000 in just the 2 years of Obama administration ...your union at work or at least at the trough!
Work Hard Have Fun!
Bob DeMaura
Corporations are not some artificial animatron, it is made up of people who make decisions, people who own the stocks and people who make the product or service. With no people you do not have a corporation.
Newsflash:
1. RTW does not dismantle unions. The airline pilot's association exists in a non-mandated union membership environment, and has for years, and their union is strong. All RTW does is allow individuals to choose whether they want to join a union or not. It actually can make unions better.
2. Any group that has to "buy" political favor to protect their own existence must do so because they lack some sort of self-descriptive value in the first place.
3. I didn't get a dime from any "big corporate" donors or businesses or anything like that. I vote for the taxpayer and my own conscience.
Thank you for your comments. I'd like to make a few points about them.
1) First off, it's not a news flash. Your post is your OPINION, not news so please don't be patronizing. It demeans us both.
2) I don't agree with your intrepretation of the effects of RTW laws. From reading the actual text of the proposed law, it looks to me like the state is now authorizing the stealing of money from union members. If I pay into a system that BOTH of us profit from but you don't pay, isn't that stealing? Isn't that what this RTW law is doing? It is very similar to the anti healthcare reform tactics. If you starve something of it's funding, it will wither and die. Maybe you can believe that RTW laws can make unions stronger. Let's just say I'm doubtful.
3) You talk of unions having "to "buy" political favor to protect their own existence." Then I guess we can assume that you are against corporate lobbyists just as vehemently because companies are spending WAY more money trying to buy influence and legislation than unions could EVER afford. So, who is really trying to "buy" favor?
4) I cannot speak to your campaign finances obviously but I can say if you are voting this way for me, please stop. I think you are driving the middle class into the ground with these short sighted RTW laws and that's not a future I want.
(2) ... the House, at the request of the unions removed the requirement of "no pay, no benny" from the RTW with an amendment. Then, when the Senate heard the bill the unions whined again and asked that they remove the amendment, and it got sent back to the house without it, which was our second vote. To paraphrase the Speaker, the unions complaining about that issue, us addressing it and then the Senate rmoving it again at the unions' request was tantamount to 'a child murdering his parents and then pleading to the court for leniency due to his orphaned status'. You can't have your cake an eat it too.
(3)...anyone who has to 'purchase favor' from elected officials particularly if it is monetary, is liable to be running afoul of ethics. I don't like when anybody does it - unions, businesses, or otherwise. That's why I see RTW as about individual freedom.
(4) unless you are a Londonderry or Auburn resident, I cannot say that I represent you.