JEFFERSON CITY — The last few weeks of the legislative session are always busy as lawmakers scramble to get their bills passed or to block bills or amendments they disagree with. This session was no different but it came with some added drama and fireworks this week. It revolved around filibustering, which is a parliamentary tactic used to prevent a vote on a bill, motion or amendment, by Senate minority party members on Right-to-Work legislation, HB 116 & 569, and Senate majority members bringing the bill to a vote.

For those not familiar with Right-to-Work, it would essentially prevent employers from requiring employees to become a member of a labor union or pay dues as a condition of employment. Right-to-Work is not anti-labor but rather pro-worker. It does not affect a union’s ability to organize or collectively bargain and it has nothing to do with the relationship between an employer and a union. Instead, it is about the relationship between unions and workers. It gives workers freedom to choose whether or not they want to join a union.

Unfortunately, many are misinformed or mistaken about the myth that Right-to-Work leads to “free riders” reaping the advantages of union representation without paying dues. This isn’t actually true though. The National Labor Relations Act does not mandate unions exclusively represent all employees, but permits them to electively do so. Under the act, unions can also negotiate "members-only" contracts that only cover dues-paying members. They do not have to represent other employees. The fact is many non-members have more faith in their own ability to negotiate a salary, hours, and benefits. To highlight this, when Michigan was debating Right-to-Work, polling showed a quarter of Michigan's government employees would opt out of unions under a Right-to-Work law.

Workers also often do not approve of the forced financing of union political activities that often occurs. Since 1989, 14 labor unions were among the top 25 political campaign contributors. Three public-sector unions were among these 14 labor groups. Their combined contributions amount to $150 million, or 15 percent of the top 25’s donations. Overall, public- and private-sector unions contributed 55.6 percent, or $552 million, of the top 25’s contributions. These figures don’t take into account the money unions spend on political mobilization or persuading union members to vote a certain way.

Right-to-Work would immediately improve Missouri’s economic situation and make us more competitive with other states. Twenty-six states have already passed Right-to-Work, including the traditional union strongholds of Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana. In these states and across the country, Right-to-Work laws have proven to be an economic windfall. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Right-to-Work states showed a 42.6 percent gain in total employment from 1990 to 2011, while non-Right-to-Work states showed gains of only 18.8 percent. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau also shows that 4.9 million people moved to Right-to-Work states from 2000 to 2009. If this wasn’t enough, the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that from 1990 to 2011, personal income grew by 209 percent in Right-to-Work states but only 149 percent in non-Right-to-Work states.

These statistics show Right-to-Work states outperforming non-Right-to-Work states in the economic areas that count - employment, population and income growth. I believe that no worker should be forced to join a union to keep his or her job and also believe that if we become a Right-to-Work state, Missouri will be instantly seen as a more welcoming state to business and would encourage employers to bring their jobs to Missouri. That’s a win-win for Missouri.

Senate minority party members filibustered HB 116 & 569 for more than eight hours on Tuesday before the majority used a procedural motion to bring the bill to a vote. It passed the Senate 21-13 and was sent to the House, where it passed 92-66 on Wednesday. It now goes to the governor, who will likely veto it. This sets a showdown at the annual veto session in September, where it will require 23 votes in the Senate and 109 votes in the House to override the governor’s veto.