After years of coming up short, could this be the legislative session when Republicans finally make New Hampshire the only right-to-work state in the Northeast?
“It’s Charlie Brown and the football,” one Republican lobbyist told NHJournal on background. “We’ll see if Lucy pulls it away again.”
The latest right-to-work bill, HB 238, came before the House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee on Wednesday. Opponents, many union workers, braved near-zero temperatures to show their opposition outside the State House.
Supporters of the legislation, which would prevent private sector workers from being forced to join a union or pay dues as a requirement of employment, have been trying to pass it since at least 2011. That year it passed both houses of the legislature, only to be vetoed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch.
Like 2011, Republicans have a solid majority in both chambers. Unlike 14 years ago, they also have a Republican governor, Kelly Ayotte, who has pledged to sign the legislation.
Republicans told NHJournal on background they believe the cause is also helped by the fact that several GOP House members who opposed right to work last session lost primaries to candidates who support it – and who had the support of Americans For Prosperity – New Hampshire.
According to the National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Fund, 27 states are currently right-to-work states. The state closest to New Hampshire featuring a right-to-work law is West Virginia.
That is an important detail, supporters argue. Being a right-to-work bastion in deep-blue New England would make New Hampshire a magnet for manufacturing and other labor-intensive industries.
“You have to drive from here down to West Virginia to get to a (right to work) state. If we are the only one in the Northeast, the benefits we could expect to come would be even more pronounced,” said Drew Cline with the free market Josiah Bartlett Center at a right-to-work forum in Windham, N.H., last month.
He also cited a 2021 Harvard University study that found passing right-to-work laws increased manufacturing as a share of employment, higher overall employment, and an increase in labor force participation.
Hurdles remain, however.
While Ayotte has said she will sign the legislation if it reaches her desk, Senate President Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) is a staunch opponent who has broken with her party on at least two occasions.
Still, Republicans enjoy a solid 16-8 Senate majority and the caucus overwhelmingly supports the bill. And so, unless something unexpected occurs, it appears right-t0-work supporters will finally get their win.
Perhaps that’s why Tuesday’s round of testimony grew tense at times, and included wacky metaphors, pointed questions from committee members, and at least one reference to a cheeseburger.
“For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Republican Party – which preaches less interference with business and less government – wants to interfere with agreements between a business and its employees,” Rich Gulla, president of the State Employees’ Association of New Hampshire, SEIU 1984, said. “No one is forced to join a union.
(Government workers already enjoy right-to-work protections thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Janus case.)
“That fair share clause has to be negotiated between a business and the employees, and I think we should stay out of the business of private business.”
That’s not exactly true, argued AFP’s Greg Moore. He recalled his stint working in a management role for the state in 2005 when he said an employee approached him in tears. According to Moore, she was upset because the union was taking a chunk of money out of her paycheck “despite the fact she didn’t agree with the direction the union was bargaining for on her behalf.”
“It’s like going to a restaurant, ordering a chicken Caesar salad, getting a cheeseburger – told you have to pay for the cheeseburger, and if you complain about it, you’re called ungrateful,” Moore added.
Moore was grilled by Rep. Michael Cahill (D-Newmarket) over his criticism of the fact that the decision to become a union workplace is made by a simple majority vote — especially when opposed by an unhappy minority.
“What you just described sounds like democracy,” Cahill said. “Benefits negotiated by the union apply to everyone. 50 percent plus-1 in a vote, that’s how democracy works. Are you opposed to democracy?”
Moore was ready with an answer.
“Correct,” he said. “And thankfully we don’t have a democracy in the United States, we have a constitutional republic where our rights are protected by the Constitution.”
Cahill appeared incredulous.
“My goodness, I thought we did have a democracy where we vote and the majority wins.”
The pattern of right-to-work opponents arguing that union membership is optional in response to supporters arguing the opposite persisted throughout Tuesday afternoon.
Former Senate Minority Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester) weighed in.
“I wouldn’t miss an opportunity to stand in solidarity with my labor brothers and sisters!” Soucy, who lost her seat to a Republican in November, posted on social media above a photo of New Hampshire AFL-CIO members protesting the legislation outside the state house.
Ironically, longtime incumbent Soucy was defeated by Republican Victoria Sullivan, who is now a co-sponsor of the bill.
Perhaps the most jarring criticism came from Lisa Beaudoin with the New Hampshire Council of Churches, who suggested allowing workers to choose not to join a union is immoral.
“This legislation is not a harm just to individuals, but to the moral fabric of New Hampshire,” Beaudoin told the committee.
Supporters skipped the sermonizing and stuck to their message of workers rights and economic opportunity.
“It’s all about freedom of choice,” Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R-Windham) told NHJournal. “When you go to work, you should have the freedom to choose whether you want to be represented by a union or not.”
