Right-to-work is wrong for N.H.

Last modified: 9/21/2012 12:00:00 AM
The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed the requirement of union membership as a condition of employment. Yet that's what proponents of the so-called right-to-work legislation claim to be stopping. So what is the point of right-to-work?

A May 2011 U.S. Dept of Labor study revealed that workers in states with right-to-work laws are paid 9.4 percent less than states without them. It appears lower wages is the point behind right-to-work, so why would New Hampshire ask for that?

Simple: New Hampshire didn't ask for it. House Bill 474, the primary right-to-work legislation offered in the O'Brien House, was substantially written by ALEC, an extremely partisan Washington-based special interest group funded by the Koch Brothers and other large corporations.

How did ALEC's model legislation get into the New Hampshire House? Simple: Several state representatives are in its circle. For example, Free Stater Mark Warden asked New Hampshire taxpayers to reimburse him $300 for attending an ALEC conference in December 2010. Warden voted for right-to-work in the last session and recently stated that passing right-to-work is one of his top priorities.

New Hampshire doesn't need out-of-staters telling us what to do. Warden's Free State ideology and ALEC's right-to-work legislation are wrong for New Hampshire. That's why I'm running against Warden for state representative in Deering, Goffstown and Weare.



Concord Monitor Office

1 Monitor Drive
Concord,NH 03301


© 2019 Concord Monitor
Terms & Conditions - Privacy Policy