Nikki Haley's 'Right to Work Partner' Suffers Major Defeat in S.C.

South Carolina's governor could possibly be seen today licking her wounds. Not only did state Republicans vote against her presidential candidate of choice, she couldn't even deliver her county to Mitt Romney.

But as the Republican carnival pulls out of the state and heads down Interstate 95, the real question is whether people are fed up with corporations dictating to people. Let's look at some of Haley's comments when endorsing Romney.

“One of the reasons we’re bringing jobs to South Carolina is that we have the lowest unionization in the country, and I want to keep it that way,” she said at a Jan. 6 rally in Tilton, N.H. “Barack Obama doesn’t appreciate right-to-work states. Mitt Romney appreciates right-to-work states … and I need a partner in the White House.”

What Romney - and Haley - appreciate is the ability to fire people when so desired. They also appreciate minimally adequate wages. So, when South Carolina selected Newt Gingrinch as their Republican presidential choice, I began to think back to the ads ran against Romney spelling out his demise and "vulture capitalism" at Bain Capital.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is leveling a forceful new attack on rival Mitt Romney, calling the Republican front-runner's private equity firm "exploitive." Gingrich made the remarks Tuesday before a gathering of business leaders in Columbia, S.C. The former House speaker describes the Bain Capital model, in at least some instances, as "leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind and walk off with all the profits." 

Now, let's educate the people on what exactly right-to-work laws are - and they are not about giving people the right to work anywhere they want.

Right-to-work states are those that bar unions from deducting dues from worker paychecks as a condition of employment. Unions see right-to-work as a bid to undermine union financing, capacity to organize, and political clout. Romney has used South Carolina, which is a right-to-work state, and New Hampshire, which is considering ways to become one, as testing grounds for how such a debate might play out nationwide.

Basically, a union shop in the state of South Carolina has to represent all workers in that shop, members or not. The law provides for people to ride the backs of union members who pay dues and participate in union activity without putting in the time or money. Those workers are sometimes labeled "scabs" by fellow workers. However, if people would understand what these laws were designed for, it would be a different story. 

Let me give you some coded language here. 

Conservatives see the current campaign cycle as a rare opportunity to undercut union political clout. After historic gains in 2010 elections, Republicans hold the governorships and new legislative majorities in a number of strong union states, including Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Moreover, labor unions bankroll opposition to the sweeping pro-business agendas that undergird Republican orthodoxy. 

How do you feel knowing you are guinea pigs in a Republican test lab? These Republicans want you to beg businesses instead on collectively having a voice to negotiate for better wages, better health care and safer work policies. 

Do you care about having a job that pays fairly and allows you to take care of a family, a house, a vehicle and provide food on your table or will you just settle for scraps, work two or three jobs and call it the American way?

Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley and former president George W. Bush think the latter. 

Let us look at how many states have this regressive law, shall we?

Twenty-two states, predominantly in the old Confederacy, already have “right to work” laws—mostly dating from the McCarthy era. “Right to work” (RTW) does not guarantee anyone a job. Rather, it makes it illegal for unions to require that each employee who benefits from the terms of a contract pay his or her share of the costs of administering it. By making it harder for workers’ organizations to sustain themselves financially, RTW aims to undermine unions’ bargaining strength and eventually render them extinct.

And the goal?

Like most business initiatives that purport to help the little people, this one starts with cutting workers’ wages. RTW is supposed to be a tool for luring manufacturers from one state to another. As the Chamber of Commerce explains, “unionization increases labor costs,” and therefore “makes a given location a less attractive place to invest new capital.” By giving up unions and lowering wages, workers increase their desirability in the eyes of manufacturers. This is the corporate lobby’s idea of economic policy: have people in every state compete for the lowest wages and crappiest benefits. Some location will inevitably win out, but in the end everyone’s wages will be lower and the number of jobs in the country will be exactly the same as before. If you wonder how income inequality got so extreme, look no further.

But even as a policy of “immiseration makes growth,” it doesn’t work. According to statistical studies (which I compiled in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute titled “Does ‘Right-to-Work’ Create Jobs?”), the impact of RTW laws is to lower average income by about $1,500 a year and to decrease the odds of getting health insurance or a pension through your job—for both union and nonunion workers. But while RTW succeeds in cutting wages, it fails to boost job growth.

South Carolina was used as a testing ground to see whether right-to-work laws and propaganda would fly. People here must have listened to the ads and news reports on Bain Capital.

Why?

A right-to-work governor in South Carolina lost Saturday night - and ran into the dark, not to be seen with the candidate she flew to New Hampshire to endorse.