RLCMN credits and thanks Walter Hudson for providing this summary and resource.

Unions created their own dilemma by initiating force against competitors, which include other unions or individual workers wishing to contract with employers separate from a union. Federal law enables unions to establish contracts granting them exclusive representation, meaning they are the only entity which can negotiate on behalf of employees. It is these exclusive representation contracts, not right-to-work, which obligate unions to represent non-members and those not paying dues. The solution is simple, unions can change their contacts to give up exclusive representation. Under right-to-work, the choice for the unions would come down to maintaining a contractual monopoly and enduring the resulting "free riders," or giving up their monopoly and competing in a free market for labor. In either case, all parties concerned would retain their freedom of association. Whether with exclusive representation or without right-to-work, employees do not have the freedom to choose whether or not to associate with a union.

Excerpts from "Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses" by John W. Cooper

Federal law allows unions the special power to create “exclusive representation” agreements with employers. If they choose to create these exclusive representation agreements, they are indeed required to represent all members, both dues paying members and free riding members alike. However, it does not appear that unions are actually required to set up these exclusive agreements (Greer, Union Representation).

Some proponents of RTW laws rightfully argue: “Nothing in federal law prevents union officials and employers from negotiating contracts in which the employer recognizes the union for its members only” (Greer, Union Representation).

Therefore, it appears that unions are not required by law to enter into exclusive bargaining agreements with their employers, and that if they wanted to they could form member only bargaining agreements in which they only represent their members, only their members are required to pay union dues, their contracts only pertain to their members, and other people are allowed to work for the employer independent of the union.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota believes every citizen has the freedom of association.  This includes the freedom to decide on their own whether to join or not join a union and whether to pay or not pay union dues.  Just like workers in 22 other states, Minnesotans should not be forced to join a union or pay dues to an organization if they do not wish to belong.

House File 2140 (Senate File 1705) proposes that all citizens be granted the freedom to decide to join or leave a union as well as to pay or not pay dues without having it affect their employment status.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota encourages the Minnesota Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment, during the 2012 legislative session, giving individual voters the freedom to decide whether to become an employee freedom state.

Thank you Sen. Thompson and Rep. Drazkowski - both are RLCMN endorsed members of the Legislature.

SENATOR DAVE THOMPSON, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE DRAZKOWSKI ANNOUNCE EMPLOYEE FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

St. Paul- Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) and Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) announced the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would give Minnesotans the opportunity to vote on whether or not Minnesota workers should have the freedom to join a union or not. Currently, if someone is hired by a company with a collective bargaining agreement in place, that person is required to join the union or pay fair share dues.

“In Minnesota law, if a worker refuses to pay union dues, they are fired. This isn't fair and it's definitely not free,” Representative Drazkowski said. “To me, this is the most important pro-jobs bill we can pass this session. It's estimated that had Minnesota passed this amendment 30 years ago, the average Minnesota working family would be earning an additional $7,000 or more every year. Nearly 70% of Minnesotans support employee freedom - let's allow the people to decide whether they want to guarantee this fundamental right in our constitution.”

If Minnesotans vote in favor of this amendment, every Minnesota worker would still have the right to join or support a labor union, only now it would be his or her own decision. Union employees would still be able to collectively bargain the same as under current law.

“Our bill is simple: let’s allow Minnesotans to vote on whether or not an individual should be forced to pay a third party in order to work. Jobs are our number one priority – this bill recognizes Minnesota workers’ ability, and right, to decide whether or not they’d like to be part of a union. States that have granted employees this freedom have experienced rapid growth in business, leading to greater job growth. From 1993 to 2009, private sector employment increased nearly 38% in those states versus only 19.6% in forced-unionism states,” said Senator Thompson. “We have an opportunity, as a state, to increase freedom and grow jobs – it’s an opportunity Minnesota cannot afford to turn down.”

###

RLCMN Secretary Rudy Takala wrote an article that was featured by American for Taxpayer Reform.  Congratulations Rudy!

Today the Republican Party is at a crossroads. It faces the choice of continuing down a path of failed leadership and forgotten principles, or taking the hard and rutted road back to its beginnings. The party was established to restore the values of our founding fathers in a time much like today, when those values had been forgotten.

Today as in 1854, the political system has fallen into the hands of greedy and ambitious leaders who disregard the rights of the people and promote ideas which are fundamentally un-American because they see them as a route to greater political power and control. The forces of special interests, sectionalism, bureaucratic indifference and institutionalized oppression are stronger than ever before. They will not be stopped unless the Republican Party remembers its purpose and stands up against them.

From its very first platform, the Republican Party has been dedicated to the ideals of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the enlightenment belief that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Although it has occasionally lost sight of those ideals, eventually core values reassert themselves and new leaders of vision set the party back on the right course.

The party was formed in 1854 in an era when the existing parties had strayed too far from the original republican values on which the nation was formed. The new party embraced the ideals of the founding fathers with the goal of securing liberty for those held in slavery and obtaining equality for all members of society.

Through the years the Republican Party has taken the lead on the great moral issues of the times:

* In the Platform of 1860 the party made opposition to slavery a national issue for the first time and expressed clear support for the rights of workers and industry.
* In the Platform of 1876 the Republican Party became the first US political party to endorse equal rights and universal suffrage for women.
* In the Platform of 1892 the Republicans became the first US political party to endorse universal suffrage and access to the polls to Americans of all races.
* In the Platform of 1896 the Republican Party first declared its dedication to fiscally responsible government.
* In the Platform of 1900 the Republicans were the first US political party to take a clear stand in opposition to racial discrimination.

During the early 1900s the Republican party also led the way in opposition to monopolies, in passing child labor laws, workplace safety regulation, and establishing reasonable working hours. The Republican party was also the first party to propose national policies for resource management and conservation. And almost from the moment the 16th Amendment made an income tax legal, the Republican party worked to minimize the tax burden, hold down federal spending, and institute fairer and more limited taxes. By the 1950s the Republican Party had taken the lead in applying federal pressure to implement desegregation and equality in the southern states.

The differences between the Republican and Democratic parties of the modern era were clear as early as 1908 when the Republican Party platform clearly delineated the differences between the two parties, which are still strikingly apparent today:

The present tendencies of the two parties are even more marked by inherent differences. The trend of Democracy is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism. Socialism would destroy wealth, Republicanism would prevent its abuse. Socialism would give to each an equal right to take; Republicanism would give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism would offer an equality of possession which would soon leave no one anything to possess, Republicanism would give equality of opportunity which would assure to each his share of a constantly increasing sum of possessions. In line with this tendency the Democratic party of to-day believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation. Ultimately Democracy would have the nation own the people, while Republicanism would have the people own the nation.

That description of the Democrats is as accurate today as it was 100 years ago, and the same Republican principles are just as valid today as they were then. Some may have forgotten the history of the party, but defending individual liberty by standing firm in the face of socialism and statism remain at the core of what makes the GOP unique.

The Republican party was born in liberty, and even in the darkest days of racial strife, that dedication to liberty and equality for all Americans regardless of race, creed, religion or lifestyle remained central to the beliefs of the GOP. The party has always dedicated itself to the ideal of the responsible individual citizen being allowed to live life in his own way without unnecessary interference from government. This principle was expressed clearly in the Republican platform of 1964:

Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference.

This idea of the sovereign individual goes hand in hand with an understanding that government has a legitimate, but limited, role to protect the rights and welfare of the people and to be answerable to the people for its actions. This was expressed clearly in the 1964 Platform:

It is for government to foster and maintain an environment of freedom encouraging every individual to develop to the fullest his God-given powers of mind, heart and body; and, beyond this, government should undertake only needful things, rightly of public concern, which the citizen cannot himself accomplish.

This platform from 40 years ago, written in a time of great national challenge and under the clear-eyed guidance of Senator Barry Goldwater, expresses better than almost any other document the fundamental beliefs of the party, including the principles of individual liberty, but also the importance of the Constitution in protecting that liberty:

Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land.

Perhaps most unique in that document was an awareness which seems to be forgotten today, that not only do individuals have responsibility for their actions, but that there is a greater responsibility invested in the government through the social contract to do right by its citizens:

It is a high mission of government to help assure equal opportunity for all, affording every citizen an equal chance at the starting line but never determining who is to win or lose. But government must also reflect the nation’s compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves.

The high ideals of Republicanism also extend to the behavior of politicians and how they use the sacred trust invested in them by the people:

Government must be restrained in its demands upon and its use of the resources of the people, remembering that it is not the creator but the steward of the wealth it uses; that its goals must ever discipline its means; and that service to all the people, never to selfish or partisan ends, must be the abiding purpose of men entrusted with public power.

Today it seems as if the Republican party and many of its leaders have lost their way. Yet the basic values of the party have not changed, though some seem to only pay lip service and to have forgotten what it has meant to be a Republican for the last 150 years. In the generation since Goldwater reasserted the core values of the party, the lure of power and greed and opportunism has been stronger than ever. This isn’t the first time that this has happened. In the late 19th century the party suffered a similar identity crisis, turning away from core values of liberty towards corporatism and arrogant complacency. Leaders like Teddy Roosevelt set the party back on track, and though the leadership foundered in the aftermath of the Depression, Eisenhower and Goldwater were there to set the party on what should have been an ideal course by the 1960s. Yet Goldwater’s defeat and the rise of socialism in the 1960s followed by the failures of the Nixon era produced a generation of leaders who have been willing to sacrifice principle for votes no matter what unsavory compromises that required. Leaders like Roosevelt and Goldwater understood that it was better to be right and lose an election than to win at any cost, because the price of such a corrupt victory is invariably too high.

This problem has been compounded by an invasion of the GOP by disaffected southern Democrats who were driven away from their party when its northern wing embraced civil rights under Kennedy and Johnson and the policies of the party became increasingly socially progressive and dominated by northern issues. As the Republicans struggled to retain their identity, this influx of angry bigots and religious zealots gave power at the polls at the cost of compromises on fundamental principles which had sustained the party for a hundred years. They were followed by strong-defense Democrats whose imperialist ambitions didn’t fit with the post-Vietnam pacifism of the Democratic Party. Both of these groups brought with them beliefs which were alien to the Republican tradition, including a belief in a strong federal government, an expansionist foreign policy, a bizarre moralistic agenda, a big dose of intolerance and a willingness to sacrifice the rights of individuals in pursuit of their political objectives. Accepting these outsiders was an act of desperation which put the integrity of the party at risk in order to hold on to political power.

Now we are paying the price for compromises which have left the party fractured with no ideological center, our history forgotten and our future uncertain. The weakness of our current generation of leaders and the harm they have done to the party with foolish alliances and venal servility to every bulging purse has to end in this new millenium. We must commit ourselves to lead where our leaders have failed and to retrieve the party from the cesspit of corruption. The GOP must reaffirm an absolute commitment to the idea of true Republican government which serves the people and does not rule over the people, and of restoring a nation dedicated to preserving the liberty of every individual equally and absolutely.

This may mean purging the party of corrupt leaders and unsound ideas so that we can restore fundamental values. We need to remember that big government, corruption, and trying to run people’s lives are the politics of the socialist left and we should not tolerate leaders who are seduced by the power socialism gives to the political class. If this means giving up some power for a few years then we should accept that. We are not worthy to lead the country until we are Republicans again and can earn back the trust and respect of the people. It would be better to be a minority party and the conscience of the nation as we were when the party was born in 1854 than to carry on as an insult to the memories of the idealists who founded the party and led it as a party of principles in past eras. We must restore the party or we will lose the party. We must demand adherence to principles from our leaders or eliminate those leaders for leading the party in the wrong direction.

In support of the Palm Beach County 8-year county commission term limits law, the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee approved a pro-term limits resolution 170-0 at their Aug. 10 meeting.  The resolution was written by Philip Blumel, a Florida RLCer and president of the Fairfax, VA, based U.S. Term Limits.

Half of Florida's 20 "home rule" charter counties have adopted term limits via a direct vote of the people, as you can see on this chart. A gaggle of politicians in Broward County challenged their term limits law -- passed in 2000 with 80% of the vote -- and found a local judge to strike down the law. The decision was written by Judge Carol Lisa Phillips, wife of the term limited former mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, who couldn't resist editorializing against term limits in her decision. An appellate court overturned the flawed Phillips decision, unanimously and unequivocably, on Aug. 10.  But the politicians have appealed and the case is going to the Supreme Court. You can follow the case on Blumel's  statewide term limits blog.

To read the Palm Beach County resolution in its entirety, go here.

If any RLCers are members of their local REC in a county with term limits, you are encouraged to submit a similar resolution in your county. If you would like help drafting it, contact Philip Blumel at pblumel@bellsouth.net.

In preparation for the 2012 election cycle, the Miami-Dade RLC is kicking into gear after reforming last year. Finishing up the affiliation process for official recognition by the state RLC, the group on Sept. 6 held elections and made plans for running candidates for public and party officies and participation in the upcoming Presidency 5 straw poll.

The Southernmost RLC club has some pedigree to live up to, as prior to statewide revival of the RLC in 2004, the Miami RLC was the flagship Florida RLC organization.

At the Tuesday meeting, at The Bar in Miami, it was determined that the following members present would form the pro-tempore executive committee:

Marcus Rivchin, chair (pictured)
Emmanuel "Manny" Roman, vice-chair
Alex Stauber, secretary
Ira Paul, treasurer

It was determined that the following members present would form the by-laws committee:

Hector Roos
Channie Kahan
Alden Dominguez

The next meeting will be at 6 p.m. Sunday, Sept. 18 at Sushi Cafe & Shilla Korean Restaurant, 7917 NW 2nd St., Miami, FL 33126, (305) 261-4266. To be alerted of future Miami-Dade RLC activities, join the Miami-Dade RLC online Meetup here. 

[UPDATE 8/10/11 -- Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals rule today IN FAVOR of county term limits. Thanks to the Broward County attorney's office and all the RLCers and others who rallied behind their voter-approved term limits laws!]

In Palm Beach County, two county commissioners – Burt Aaronson and Karen Marcus, a Democrat and a Republican -- have announced they intend to defy 70% of the voters by running again in 2012 in spite of a voter-approved and initiated term limits law. RLCers and others are not taking this news sitting down.

Citizens – including RLCers Rick Shepherd, Bill Skinner and George and Philip Blumel – met on Monday to plan a response. The meeting, called just two days before, drew over 20 activists, most veterans of the successful campaign to impose term limits in 2002.

Earlier this year a new local website was launched to track this issue, www.pbctermlimits.com. At Monday’s meeting, activists raised some Monday and decided to buy ads in local media and start a 93,000 home robocall informing voters of the commissioners’ intentions and directing them to the website.

A poll has been created on the site, allowing readers to weigh in on the controversy.

Palm flyers were created for distribution at public places and citizens are encourage to participate in the current charter review process, calling for retention and defense of the people’s term limits law.

On Thursday, Philip Blumel spoke to the Palm Beach County Young Republicans and distributed the flyers.

The goal of the so-far unnamed group is to educate voters about the law and discourage Marcus and Aaronson from running against the clearly expressed will of the people. Both commissioners are pinning their hopes on a legal challenge to the Broward County term limits law, but the citizens committee is echoing the Palm Beach Post’s call for commissioners to stand down in accord with the clearly expressed will of the people.

The term limits law is typical of those in home rule charter counties throughout the state. It imposes an 8-year consecutive term limit and passed with 70% of the voter. Activists collected over 60,000 petition signatures to put the idea on the ballot for a vote.

The term limits went into affect in 2010. In the eight-year period before the limits went into effect, four members of the commission have been indicted and three have gone to prison for corruption.

Former New Jersey Senatorial candidate Dr. Murray Sabrin, echoing Milton Friedman’s famous advice, told Republicans to work to reduce all taxes, everywhere, in his address to the Republican Club of Central Palm Beach County on June 2.

In his manifesto-like address, “The Case for Zero Taxes,” Dr. Sabrin drew on his professional experience as finance professor at Ramapo College in New Jersey and political experience as an RLCer and Republican candidate to make his seemingly radical case to mainstream Republicans. He said this is only possible by drastically reducing the scope of government, returning it to the Founders' limited, Constitutional vision.

The four major classes of taxes under fire included direct taxes (income tax), indirect taxes (tariffs and excise taxes), regulation and inflation.

Dr. Sabrin warned Republicans not to get enthused about some novel new tax, like the Fair Tax, but instead should focus on cutting spending and taxes, not adding or shifting or improving them. “Taxation is not a solution,” he said, “It’s the problem."

He noted that noone in Washington – “except for Ron Paul and maybe a few others” are serious about cutting spending and, hence, taxes. In his run for the U.S. Senate, Dr. Sabrin was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and has served on the national board of the RLC.

It has become a tradition. Every year, dozens of RLCers make the trek to Tallahassee for RLC Days at the Capitol -- two days of tangling with legislators, drinking at Clyde's and Costello's and getting briefings from economists, grass roots lobbyists and think tanks.

It is a lot of fun, and comradrie is always a welcome result. But it is more than just fun. RLCers express the views of the membership on key issues directly to legislators and teach them about the libertarian Republican approach to policy. The group chooses issues that emphasize liberty and urge principle over party.

This year, the issues agenda was longer than usual and RLCer and political consultant John Hallman helped us press the right issues in the right offices to be most effective as he led 34 of us around the capitol.

Top issues turned out to be supporting the governor on tough pension reforms, cutting spending and taxes, banning of red light cameras, repealing the REAL ID act, several state sovereignty bills, eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing and repealing the state septic tank inspection program.

Interestingly, Smart Cap -- the institutional spending restraint billed as TABOR and Taxpayer Protection Act in the past -- was on the list but didn't engender the same enthusiasm of years past. This idea, which traditionally would limit the growth of state spending or revenues to a combination of inflation and population growth, passed the Senate before RLCers had left town. The Senate bill was pushed by its longtime champion Senate President Mike Haridopolos, but had been watered down with exceptions and even with a padded formula that increased spending in the early years and hence raised the spending trajectory forever. As a result, most of our lobbying on Smart cap was urging House members to adopt a tougher version.

Another surprise is the interest we found in Tallahassee for medical marijuana. The statewide coordinator for the MedMar referendum effort, new RLCer Kim Russell, joined us as we made our rounds and we discovered several rookie legislators of both parties supported the idea.

RLCers received a briefing from our chief advisor, FSU professor of economics Randy Holcombe, on several issues. Also, Bob McClure of the James Madison Institute briefed us on the work the Tallahassee-based think tank is currently doing. RLCer Greg Newburn of Families Against Mandatory Minimums briefed us as well as representatives of Floridians Against REAL ID.

RLCers met with dozens of politicians as a group and individually, as time was provided for us to visit our own legislators. As a group RLCers met with, among others, Reps. Jimmie T. Smith, Matt Caldwell, Jeff Clemens, Alan Hayes and Sens. Joe Negron, Greg Evers, Scott Plakon, Mike Haridopolos and Don Gaetz. 

Pictured: At top, Senate President Mike Haridopolos goes through our legislative agenda commenting and answering questions from RLCers. Next, Rep. Matt Caldwell addresses RLCers about his memorial calling for Congressional term limits and other issues. At bottom, Bryan Donnelly and Steve Burden listen to FSU professor Randy Holcombe.

Eric Olson for Congress TV interview with local channel 56 News