House Support for Right-To-Work Bill Weakens

Tea Party and Free State Republicans again joined forces in an effort to eliminate collective bargaining in New Hampshire. Both groups supported House Bill 1677, which would prevent any private or public employer from negotiating a contract that forces employees to be members of a union or requires non-union members to pay "fair share" fees to the union covering the cost of negotiating a contract. Fair share workers receive all benefits that appear in the negotiated contract.

This bill is largely the same as one that was defeated in the House on a veto override vote last November. The major difference is that in the present legislation non-union members would be able to negotiate on their own behalf with the employer.

That sounds deceptively appealing. Workers don't have to join a union; they can negotiate on their own. Think about it. Devious employers would give non-union members the same benefits as those negotiated in the contract by the union. Union members would then conclude that no benefit is produced by union membership, so they would resign. The union would be broken and collective bargaining ended. The real effect would be felt down the road when employers dictate unfavorable wages and benefits, and the workers have no unified way to oppose them. Welcome to the job conditions produced by so-called right-to- work.

Fortunately, after extensively discussing so-called right-to-work legislation, legislators are slowly coming to understand its drawbacks. Last fall, a right-to-work bill failed to override Democratic governor John Lynch's veto by only 14 votes out of 352 cast.

Garrett Brnger notes in an AP story (3/15/12), "The latest version of right-to-work legislation is losing the steam it needs to pass in New Hampshire. . . On Wednesday, the House passed the latest version, 198 to 139, but that also falls far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. . . A dwindling number of Republicans support the legislation as a few hop the fence to join a Republican faction and the entire Democratic caucus that oppose it. Six Republicans who voted in support of overriding Lynch's veto last year, voted against right-to-work Wednesday."

The votes on this bill cast by legislators representing Hampton and North Hampton are shown below. D stands for Democrat. R stands for Republican. Yes is a vote for Right To Work. No is a vote against Right To work.

Hampton: Chris Nevins (R) - yes. Fred Rice (R) - yes. Ken Sheffert (R) - yes. Kevin Sullivan (R) - no. James Waddell (R) - no

North Hampton/Exeter/Stratham: Patrick Abrami (R) - yes. Timothy Copeland (R) - no. Patty Lovejoy (D) - no. Michele Peckham (R) - yes. Marshall Quandt (R) - no. Matthew Quandt (R) - no. Donna Schlachman (D) - no. Joanne Ward (R) - yes