# Indiana passes "Right To Work" law...Caterpillar moves plant to Indiana



## Melensdad

Canada's loss in Indiana's gain.  Apparently my state may pick up roughly 450 manufacturing jobs.  Why?  Well it looks like the new law, just passed in Indiana, with the backing of Caterpillar and other large manufacturing companies, as well as a fairly strong grass roots move against unions, is one of the reasons that the jobs are coming back to the USA, and to Indiana in particular.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/04/toronto-electro-motive-plant-closure.html



> It's widely expected that Caterpillar is moving the jobs to its plant in Indiana; the company is holding a job fair there on Saturday.
> 
> On Wednesday, Indiana passed a right-to-work bill, after pressure from Caterpillar, that allows workers to opt out of union membership.
> 
> "I don't think this timing is a coincidence," London-based economist Mike Moffatt told CBC News. "Because Caterpillar got the legislation it wanted and the governor was then able to promote the jobs that legislation brought to Indiana."


----------



## thcri RIP

Bob

I read that your Governor passed the Right to Work Law for Indiana and that Illinois has the most to lose because of it but Governor of Illinois was not worried. I bet he is worried and I bet business moves. In the article I read it said there are other States thinking of enacting the same law. Good for your State.


----------



## Melensdad

I'm not sure, but there are roughly 1/2 the states that have this same law.  Maybe Indiana is the 23rd or 24th state to pass it?  

I'm just happy to see some jobs coming into Indiana.


----------



## BRGTold

Maybe moving closer to there new distribution center..?..new center is just miles from I-70~I-75 interchange..  http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=39081


----------



## Av8r3400

Hopefully Wisconsin will follow soon, too, with some type of right to work legislation.


----------



## FrancSevin

thcri said:


> Bob
> 
> I read that your Governor passed the Right to Work Law for Indiana and that Illinois has the most to lose because of it but Governor of Illinois was not worried. I bet he is worried and I bet business moves. In the article I read it said there are other States thinking of enacting the same law. Good for your State.


 
Illinois Governors never have to worry any more. They all get permanent housing and 3 squares at a Federal Penn when they retire.


----------



## Kane

Once the Walker recall in Wisconsin fails, all the late-coming states will follow suit. America will once again see untethered union-free growth in the manufacturing sectors. And as a complete surprise to that commie Ed Shultz, there may even be a temptation to bring middle-class jobs back home from overseas.


----------



## Melensdad

Kane said:


> Once the Walker recall in Wisconsin fails, all the late-coming states will follow suit. America will once again see untethered union-free growth in the manufacturing sectors. And as a complete surprise to that commie Ed Shultz, there may even be a temptation to bring middle-class jobs back home from *overseas*.



I think there is a wide combination of factors IN ADDITION to things like "right to work."

Canada has similar labor and environmental laws to the USA ... although I don't think their environmental laws are as screwy as ours are.  So a plant moving from Canada to the USA can be accomplished if one of the factors becomes the 'tipping point' factor in the decision.

HOWEVER, when looking at the plants that are actually overseas like in VietNam, China or even free nations like India, then I think you have to look at the EPA as one of the major reasons why the USA is losing jobs.  Our EPA keeps raising the bar on reducing pollution.  Nobody wants pollution.  But the EPA tends to over-reach.  In doing so it creates burdens on business that are so expensive to install, and so expensive to maintain, that it actually becomes cheaper to move an entire plant overseas and build a "dirty" factory, with the net effect being that the EPA is making the world dirtier.  

So while "Right to Work" will be a deciding factor when moving a factory from SOME nations to the USA, it will NOT be much of a factor if the EPA maintains its insane stranglehold over many factories.


----------



## jpr62902

Just thought I would tie this thread in with this one: http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=52949&highlight=canada+caterpillar&page=3

since it discusses the same topic.


----------



## Bamby

Here's another thought on the subject.....

On Friday Caterpillar announced they were closing a factory in  Canada. They had wanted the workers to take a 50% pay-cut plus a  substantial cut to benefits. The workers understandably were not excited  at the prospect of going from earning $67,000 a year to $28,000. One  might think that Caterpillar was a struggling company, asking workers to  accept a 50% pay-cut, one couldn’t be more wrong. Profit was up 36% in  2011 vs 2012. Oddly the CEO’s (also Chairman of the Board) pay package  in 2010 (latest available numbers) was quadrupled from 2009, to a total  of $22.5 million including a $16 million stock grant. 


_Caterpillar's decision, ending a standoff with locked-out workers  huddled around barrels of burning scrap wood outside the London factory  gates, may benefit another downtrodden manufacturing city: Muncie,  Ind., where Caterpillar last year opened a locomotive plant and where it  is trying to fill jobs at about half the pay workers in Ontario  received. At a job fair in Muncie Saturday, *Caterpillar will be  offering jobs at that plant at wages ranging from $12 to $18.50 per  hour. Wages for most workers at the Ontario plant are about 35 Canadian  dollars an hour.*_​If Caterpillar does move theses jobs to Munice what does it stand to get from the City and the State?


_When Caterpillar agreed to revitalize a former Westinghouse  electrical-equipment plant in Muncie that had been idle for 12 years, *state  and city officials provided incentives that could reach about $28  million, assuming Caterpillar meets its goals for adding as many as 650  jobs. Those incentives include tax credits, infrastructure improvements  and worker-training funds.*_
_If Caterpillar increases  its investment in Muncie to replace the Ontario capacity, Muncie  officials said it may qualify for further incentives. "We're going to do  all we can to help them," said Jay Julian, chief executive officer of  the Muncie-Delaware County Economic Development Alliance._​So the State will pay $28 millon for the privilege of having  Caterpillar employee 650 people at about an average yearly salary of  $24,000 (a level that the federal government defines as just a hair  above the poverty level)? By the way, the CEO could pay all 650 salaries  for one year and still have almost $8 million left over.


 Some will say a job is a job is a job. But is a skilled labour job  that barely pays $100 a day before taxes (state taxes),really something  state’s should be begging for?  Does the USA really want to start  applauding the creation of poverty level jobs? Are new households  created on $24,000 a year? Is demand stimulated with $24,000 a year.


 Further who do you think is going to be left to pay the tab for these  workers’ medical care, and pension benefits? Yes dear taxpayer that  would be you. You, who paid for the privilege of having these jobs  placed in your state to begin with, are now subsidising the compensation  (benefit) packages of all the “newly employed”. The Corporation, well  they don’t really pay as much taxes as they used to (corporate tax  receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40  years), all those tax breaks/loopholes etc, really do add up. 


*U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But  the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that  has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits  are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.*

*Total  corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from  activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30,  according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level  since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average  from 1987 to 2008*.​ This is reverse socialism. It is the redistribution of wealth from  the lower to the upper class with explicit State support. It is the sort  of wealth redistribution that if allowed to go unchecked leads to  social instability.


 So in this the election season, we will all be told which Person or  Party will be the best job creator. President Obama will take a victory  lap as a “job creator in chief.” We will hear much about the  “re-shoring” of jobs.We will hear about GE revitalizing manufacturing in  the USA (they have closed 29 factories in the US since 2009). We will  cheer the amazing profitability of GM ($45B tax break courtesy of the US  taxpayer).The narrative on taxation will include the common line that  Corporate taxes are to high and capital gains tax should be zero. What  we won’t hear about is Corporations, like Caterpillar, taking money from  workers and taxpayers, to enrich Corporate profits, and Corporate  executives. We won’t hear about a CEO who got his pay quadrupled, and in  turn cut his workers salary by 50%. Most of all we won’t hear about the  soft landing in living standards for 80% of Americans.


Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203889904577200953014575964.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html


----------



## Dargo

I do some business in Peoria, IL and there is a large Caterpillar plant there.  Based on hundreds of credit applications at local dealerships there, nobody there, except possibly part time help, earns $24,000 per year.  That figure simply does not pass the smell test.  I'm not buying it.  I'd bet heavily that the average worker in the new Cat plant will earn quite a bit more than $24k per year.  How much do you want to bet that there will be 10 people applying for every job opening there?


----------



## Melensdad

Dargo said:


> . . . How much do you want to bet that there will be 10 people applying for every job opening there?



I'd take that bet because the number will be more like 25 people per job opening.


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

i'm a big supporter of unions even though i vote republican when i was on hard times the unions did alot more to put me to work than the un employment office or job service both of them government offices. yes there are some arguements on unions but they do have their place also the enviromental wackos are our biggest stepping stone we new buisness have to work around


----------



## Danang Sailor

Those numbers don't make sense.  If the entry-level job pays approximately $100 per day, that is about $36.4k per year, not $24k.  Makes me wonder how much of the rest is wrong as well.


----------



## joec

Danang Sailor said:


> Those numbers don't make sense. If the entry-level job pays approximately $100 per day, that is about $36.4k per year, not $24k. Makes me wonder how much of the rest is wrong as well.


 
Actually at $100 per day based on a 40 hour week, 50 weeks a year is $25K per year DS. Now take off for unpaid holidays about 6 to 9 per year and that is about $24K per year before taxes. The 50 weeks is based on a two week none paid vacation.


----------



## tiredretired

dds said:


> i'm a big supporter of unions even though i vote republican when i was on hard times the unions did alot more to put me to work than the un employment office or job service both of them government offices. yes there are some arguements on unions but they do have their place also the enviromental wackos are our biggest stepping stone we new buisness have to work around



I'm with you. 

The few times I was laid off in my 37 years in the IBEW it was the Business Manager who got me working again, instead of the government.  The way it should be.  These unions think their power lies in their ability to hold owners and school boards for ransom.  They need to take a page from the IBEW Building trades and incorporate the Code of Excellence Program into their way of thinking.  Worked for us in high voltage.  Most people would look nowhere else but us to get the work done, because of our expertise.  That my friends is where the power lies. Good at what you do, not strong arming a school board member for more health care coverage.  

BTW, I voted Republican too.  But why not?  We actually worked for our money, expected no handouts and never covered for the deadwood.  They got sent back to the hall, talking to themselves.


----------



## Catavenger

Welcome to the land of the minimum wage


----------



## Snowtrac Nome

TiredRetired said:


> I'm with you.
> 
> The few times I was laid off in my 37 years in the IBEW it was the Business Manager who got me working again, instead of the government. The way it should be. These unions think their power lies in their ability to hold owners and school boards for ransom. They need to take a page from the IBEW Building trades and incorporate the Code of Excellence Program into their way of thinking. Worked for us in high voltage. Most people would look nowhere else but us to get the work done, because of our expertise. That my friends is where the power lies. Good at what you do, not strong arming a school board member for more health care coverage.
> 
> BTW, I voted Republican too. But why not? We actually worked for our money, expected no handouts and never covered for the deadwood. They got sent back to the hall, talking to themselves.


  I agree with the traade unions you get what you pay for you want a worker capable of doing a good job in a timely manner a trade union will get you one on the otherhand you are right in that some of these admin unions are just there to strong arm management which just causes haterid on both sides just like republicans and  democrats i belonged to a uion that represented fedral employees when i was civil service they never dd much for me other than badger management which did sometime need a reality check but the bottom line even though i was a wg11 because we were in a miliary uniform i was always butting heads with officers who thaught of me as a seargent union never did much for me there however iam and local 302 were right there to put me to work which is how it should be.


----------



## Melensdad

Catavenger said:


> Welcome to the land of the minimum wage



The law does NOT eliminate unions.  

Indiana's factories are primarily union operations already and this won't eliminate that.  Those factories that are non-union in this state still pay high wages.  The Subaru auto factory in the state is one of the largest non-union factories in the state but it still pays excellent wages.

Not sure why people think the new Cat plant will be minimum wage jobs, I seriously doubt that will be the case.  In fact I'd even bet that it will be a union operation because the unions are deeply imbedded into Cat in other states so its likely that this plant will follow that trend.


----------



## joec

dds said:


> I agree with the traade unions you get what you pay for you want a worker capable of doing a good job in a timely manner a trade union will get you one on the otherhand you are right in that some of these admin unions are just there to strong arm management which just causes haterid on both sides just like republicans and democrats i belonged to a uion that represented fedral employees when i was civil service they never dd much for me other than badger management which did sometime need a reality check but the bottom line even though i was a wg11 because we were in a miliary uniform i was always butting heads with officers who thaught of me as a seargent union never did much for me there however iam and local 302 were right there to put me to work which is how it should be.


 
I was a member of the Sheet Metals Workers Union for about 20 years and did a 4 year apprenticeship with them also. We earned our money but there are unions that are like the trades and then others that aren't. I've not belong since 79 when I left the union due to work dieing for the trade in general due mostly to right to work laws.

The difference is in those days I supported a family with 4 kids and my wife didn't work. Today the jobs for one won't allow that to happen as if both husband and wife don't work they will pretty much be broke.


----------



## Melensdad

Another article about the Right to Work law, this from Reason Magazine.

LINK => http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/07/indiana-leads-the-right-to-work-charge

> *Indiana Leads the Right-to-Work Charge
> The Hoosier State's historic vote may be a tipping point in the battle against Big Labor.*
> 
> Shikha Dalmia | February 7, 2012
> 
> Last week, Indiana became the first state in a decade_ (and the first state in the Rust Belt)_ to adopt a right-to-work law. This means that Indiana’s working men and women, like their comrades in 22 other states, will no longer have to pay mandatory dues to union bosses as a condition of employment. Big Labor was apoplectic, even threatening demonstrations at Sunday’s Super Bowl in Indianapolis, although saner heads prevailed, averting a PR disaster for unions.
> 
> But regardless of how Big Labor feels, _Indiana’s law will go down in history as the watershed moment that decisively stemmed the awesome power it has exerted on American politics for about a century._
> 
> After months of histrionics by unions and Democratic legislators—who twice skipped town to prevent a quorum—the Indiana House a few weeks ago passed the bill with a largely party-line 54-44 vote. It sailed through the GOP-dominated Senate last week and Gov. Mitch Daniels signed it immediately. Daniels pulled a switcheroo, becoming a big right-to-work champion after years of foot-dragging. In doing so, he might have unleashed forces that Big Labor can’t beat back.
> 
> _The economic case for right-to-work laws has long been clear. Big Labor denies this, but manufacturers avoid union towns like the plague. Not a single foreign automaker has built a factory in Michigan, the auto capital of the world, whose highly trained auto work force—you’d think—would give it an unbeatable advantage._ Daniels embraced the right-to-work cause when he couldn’t get Volkswagen even to return his calls, because the company won’t consider coming to a non-right-to-work state.
> 
> The upshot is that *right-to-work states have done a far better job of growing their economies, providing jobs—especially in manufacturing—and attracting people*. Between 2002 and 2009, every year except one, economic growth in these states was noticeably higher than in non-right-to-work states. Over the last decade, employment grew 2.3 percent in right-to-work states compared with a 4 percent decline in others. What’s more,* income growth in the right-to-work states was 17.5 percentage points higher*. And Ohio State University economist Richard Vedder found that “without exception, a statistically significant positive relationship” exists between the presence of right-to-work laws and in-migration.
> 
> So why aren’t states scrambling to embrace right-to-work laws? Four words: fear of Big Labor.
> 
> It took 10 years to win this battle in Indiana, even though unions are less potent there than in its neighboring states. Only 10.9 percent of Indiana’s private-sector employees are unionized, compared with 16.5 percent in Michigan.
> 
> More importantly, Indiana doesn’t allow recalls against lawmakers or referenda to repeal bills, making the fight for right-to-work much more winnable. That’s not the case in most other states. _Big Labor, for example, launched a recall campaign against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker after he implemented a right-to-work law for public-sector employees. And Big Labor deployed its enormous war chest—amassed through mandatory dues, obviously—in November on a ballot initiative that killed a similar law in Ohio._
> 
> This means that right-to-work advocates have to prepare not for just one but multiple battles in order to prevail. The uncertainty makes it hard to convince state GOP lawmakers, even when they control all chambers, to take up their cause. Indeed, the last time a right-to-work bill came up for a vote in Indiana, in 2005, 22 Republican House lawmakers voted against it.
> 
> Right-to-work activists could overcome such resistance—and short-circuit the process—by themselves putting a referendum before voters. But the problem there, notes Paul Kersey of the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, is that unless there is about 60 to 70 percent public support and considerable financial backing to withstand the $100 million or so advertising onslaught and a union-orchestrated get-out-the-vote drive, things could backfire badly. Not only would the ballot lose, but the cadres of pro-union voters who show up at the polls would cause losses in other GOP races. That’s why the GOP establishment moves mountains to stop right-to-work initiatives.
> 
> *So why will the Indiana victory break this logjam? *Three reasons. First, unions are in a depleted state after fending off attacks in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Ohio. They may no longer be able to fight effectively on new fronts, especially if they lose the recall petition against Walker, which looks likely. His law is gaining popularity every day as public schools, for example, regain control over their budgets and teachers.
> 
> Second, anemic growth and state budgets saddled with public employee legacy costs have shifted opinion in a pro-right-to-work direction. In Michigan, the union epicenter, the issue has been drawing over 50 percent support for a while.
> 
> But, above all, Indiana will both intensify the competitive pressure on its neighbors and offer lessons that they can’t ignore. So long as none of the Rust Belt states was right-to-work, they could all blame other factors for their manufacturing woes. With Indiana breaking ranks, this is a less viable political sell. A highly regarded 1998 study by Thomas Holmes of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that manufacturing employment as a percentage of county population increased by a third in right-to-work counties compared to bordering non-right-to-work ones. If Indiana becomes an attractive destination for manufacturers in the Midwest, its neighbors can hardly sit on their derrieres and watch.
> 
> None of this will happen overnight. Right-to-work states are not even in the majority today. But a decade hence, things might look dramatically different.


----------



## Dargo

dds said:


> i'm a big supporter of unions even though i vote republican when i was on hard times the unions did alot more to put me to work than the un employment office or job service both of them government offices. yes there are some arguements on unions but they do have their place also the enviromental wackos are our biggest stepping stone we new buisness have to work around



My dad paid in over 30 years to the UMWA (remember them?  used to be one of the most powerful - and extremely corrupt with Richard Trumpka running it - unions) and, like most all miners, all he got was the shaft.  I have to shake my head and mutter "stupid, stupid, stupid" when I see that Trumpka is the union poster-boy and leader.  You couldn't find a more corrupt guy with a worst history of corruption and theft, thuggery and flat out extortion.  With Trumpka in charge, you'd do better taking your union dues and using them to burn in your fireplace for warmth.  At least you'll get _something_ out of them that way.  Now you're just buying corrupt politicians in a losing game and your pensions and health care benefits ARE being spent doing this.

I can show you quite a few guys who would fight over any "anti-union" words for almost all of their life.  Now they have almost nothing and wonder where all their money went and their defunct unions are asking them to contribute "to the cause".  It's really sad.  I can't put in print what I think should happen to Trumpka and the rest of the AFL-CIO leadership.


----------



## Kane

There clearly was an "era" when unions were a benefit to the employee as well as the business owner  ...  call it the post war '60s thru the '80s.  And this speaking as an ironworker from Ironworkers Local 69 during the '70s - '80s.  The men were paid well and the company benefited from the pool of qualified journeymen.  Nearly a win-win on some projects. But an abuse of power on labor's part on other projects, particularly on larger government jobs, like nuke plants or major civil projects.

Even as a prior union man and supporter, now got nuthin' good to say about 'em.  Unions succumb to easy money sloth and union dues greed.   Sloth and laze on the part of the workmen, and greed on the part of the over-paid union boss. Got nuttin' good to say.

And it's only become worse as the union man's dues have purchased the Democrats' political power.  Corruption and greed.  Greed and corruption.  Got nuthin' good to say.
.


----------

