• Advertisement

Dan Innis Emerges – As A Right-Wing Legislator From A Moderate District.

A person familiar with the man whose data-driven approach animated his work at UNH’s Paul School of Business could have been forgiven for being surprised by the approach taken by the Dan Innis since his election to the New Hampshire Senate in November. HIs approach to chairing the Commerce Committee in a packed Representatives’ Hall provides an example. In the face of data, anecdote, and personal testimonials, Innis seemed deaf to any criticism of controversial right-to-work legislation being heard by the committee. Impatient with testimony from over 100 labor leaders, small businessmen, and economists and eager to defend the endorsements of SB 11 by lobbyists and national right-wing activists, Innis seemed, not only to have his mind made up, but unwilling to listen to any facts that might change it.

Chairman Innis also used his new position to encourage his fellow senators to put any concerns which might have arisen during the four hours of public testimony that they had just heard out of their minds. With gavel in hand, Chairman Innis shut down debate among his colleagues after a mere hour and got the result he wanted. The committee recommended that the full Senate pass the Koch Bros. number one legislative priority for the states. Republican orthodoxy and right-wing ideology had overcome the opposition of a vast majority of attendees at the Senate hearing, with Sen. Innis’s support.

Sen. Innis’s unlikely emergence as a right-wing champion hasn’t been limited to his work as a committee chair. He also put his support behind legislation that allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon by sponsoring SB12. This bill, which was opposed by police chiefs and public safety advocates throughout the state, passed the Senate days after a freshman GOP legislator inadvertently dropped a gun on the floor during a House hearing on the measure.

A glance over the legislation Innis has sponsored this year further demonstrates that the hotelier and academic would NOT serve as a moderate Republican in the mode of Nancy Stiles, his GOP predecessor in District 24, but rather as an ideological, Tea Party legislator. Another example is a bill he is sponsoring entitled SB44, an act prohibiting the state from requiring implementation of Common Core standards. Common Core, a set of educational goals and measurements developed by state and local governments to make comparisons between school results clearer and to designed to measure both student learning and critical thinking skills, has become a favorite target of right-wingers from Glenn Beck (who wrote a sci-fi novel suggesting an enslaved future thanks to Common Core) to legislators and activists who fear that Common Core teaching leads to homosexuality.

These may merely be the efforts of a freshman legislator to court his party’s far-right base, but in a year with a new governor who seems equally susceptible to trends among the national right-wing, his votes have consequences. Seacoast voters would be well advised to ignore the Dan Innis who has carefully cultivated a reputation as a reasonable community leader and pay close attention the Dan Innis who is voting in Concord. They might not recognize him, but they should recognize the impact of the right-wing voting record he is compiling.

AFT-NH Legislative Bulletin: ‘Right To Work’ Passes Senate, House To Hear Bills On NH Retirement

January 20, 2017

Yesterday, the NH Senate passed SB 11, the so-called ‘right to work’ bill, by a vote of 12-11. Ten Democratic senators were joined by Republican Senator Sharon Carson in opposing the bill, while one Republican Senator, Robert Guida, was absent and did not vote. By this action, the Republican majority in the NH Senate (excepting Senator Carson) makes clear where it stands. Their aim is to weaken organized labor and the ability of working people to negotiate collectively and have a powerful voice in the workplace. When organized labor is strong, working people are strong, wages rise, benefits improve, and there is greater mutual respect and equality in the workplace. ‘Right to work’ intends to reverse gains made in New Hampshire over nearly the past fifty years, and in tandem with other legislation, will turn New Hampshire into the low-wage haven of New England.

The battle over ‘right to work’ now moves to the NH House, where it is expected that the Senate bill (SB 11) and the identical House version (HB 520 ) will be examined jointly in a hearing before the House Labor Committee, possibly as early as February 8. When one of the bills would then reach the floor of the House for a vote is not yet clear, but at least one of the measures would likely be brought forward prior to the Legislature’s usual winter break in the final week of February.

What does this mean for us? It means we must redouble our efforts to rally public opposition to this anti-working families legislation and we must each commit ourselves and our co-workers to identify the NH House members who represent us, contact them, and make our position clear and our voices heard. Phone calls, emails, letters and petitions will all be in play over the next few weeks, so tighten your seat belts—it will be a rough ride! You can start by visiting the AFT-NH website, clicking on ‘State House News’ under the ‘2017 State House’ tab, and scroll down to where you can search out the names of your NH Senator and Representatives. Knowing who they are is Step 1, before we initiate further actions. And while there, please browse the AFT-NH website—there is much useful information on so-called ‘right to work’ and other issues of concern to us.

In other legislative news, HB 438, prohibiting public sector automatic union dues withholding from paychecks has yet to be scheduled for a hearing in front of the House Labor Committee. Advocates of so-called ‘right to work’ like to claim they are defending individual choice (to free-load) but with HB 438, no such figleaf or specious justification exists. This is direct and undisguised attempt to destroy the ability of labor unions to collect dues from their members in a convenient and simple manner, negotiated via their collective bargaining agreements. Keep this bill in your sights—it is crucial that we defeat it.

A number of bills regarding the NH Retirement System will have their House committee hearings next week. These early hearings are on bills that utilize a variety of strategies to reduce the heavy burdens being placed on public employers (cities, towns, school districts) across New Hampshire due to the State’s refusal to share the burdens and make ANY contributions into the NHRS. Assaults on the NHRS itself will come in future weeks, when proposed legislation reducing benefits or even dismantling the NHRS will come up for hearings.

The final deadline for House bills to be introduced is January 27th. The AFT-NH Bill Watch list is posted on our website and will be updated regularly.

Finally, in the area of education, we have had committee hearings on bills authorizing the State Board of Education to implement a code of ethics for certified teaching personnel, mandating a minimal two-week notice regarding curricular materials on human sexuality, and a proposal to repeal the education tax credit program benefiting charter and private schools. Education Committee actions have not yet been reported on these bills, and we will continue to monitor them as we move deeper into the legislative session. And no account of education-related activity in Concord would be complete without noting Governor Sununu’s nomination of Frank Edelblut as NH Education Commissioner. Given Edelblut’s complete lack of any education experience (he is an accountant by profession) and his clear support for siphoning public funds to pay for tuition at private schools, this is a nomination that deeply concerns AFT-NH and likely the entire education community in NH. So stay tuned—we will be asking your help to mobilize opposition to his confirmation by the Executive Council.

 

In Solidarity,

Douglas Ley

AFT-NH, President

Sen. Carson Joins Senate Democrats In Opposition To SB11, Right To Work

Today the NH Senate to the first step in making New Hampshire a Right to Work for less state.

In a 12-11 vote the Senate passed SB 11 a so-called “right to work” bill that would strip employers and unions of their rights to negotiate an agency fee provision in their contracts.

Republican Senator Sharon Carson was the only Republican to stand up for the working families in New Hampshire by opposing SB 11.  All of the Senate Democrats were in attendance and voted against the bill.  (Republican Senator Bob Guida, was absent from todays vote.)

“I’m disappointed that instead of focusing on legislation that expands opportunity and increases wages for everyone, Republicans are rushing to pass a divisive bill that makes it harder for people in New Hampshire to earn a living and support a family,” said Deputy Democratic Leader Donna Soucy (D-Manchester). “We know that in states with ‘Right to Work for Less’ laws, incomes stagnate or decrease and the standard of living declines.” 

“We should be proud of our state’s record of low unemployment and strong economic growth and we should not pass laws that interfere with the relationship between employers and their employees,” added Senator Soucy. “That’s why Democrats and Republicans have come together to defeat this flawed, right-wing proposal for decades – it’s simply wrong for New Hampshire, our workers, our businesses and our economy.”

Last week, over 100 people and community organization testified against SB 11 showing how it would reduce wages, lower safety within the workplace, reduce workers chances of having any type of retirement, and ultimately result in a loss of good paying NH jobs.  The year after passing Right to Work, Wisconsin lost over 10,000 jobs.

The leaders of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO and its Affiliates, the National Education Association of New Hampshire, the State Employees Association, the New Hampshire Carpenters, and the New Hampshire Teamsters released a joint statement following the Senate passage of so-called “Right-to-Work” legislation:

“Today the New Hampshire Senate passed the so-called “Right-to-Work” bill.  This bill is not about improving New Hampshire’s economy or increasing the freedoms of any worker in the Granite State. Instead it is an attack on all working families by special interests seeking to lower wages for everyone and undermine worker protections. This bill is designed to do one thing and one thing only:  limit employees’ ability to advocate on behalf of what’s best for their families and communities. 

This bill will silence the teachers who advocate on behalf of smaller class sizes for our children, the transportation employees who negotiate for the equipment they need to keep the roads clear after a blizzard and the police and firefighters who negotiate for the staffing levels they need to keep us safe. It would take away the voices of tradespeople like ironworkers, pipe-fitters and line workers who negotiate the safety standards that keep entire industries safe.

When working people aren’t able to have a voice in what’s best for our communities, we all lose.

New Hampshire deserves real solutions to real problems, not attempts to limit working people’s voice in their communities.  The legislature was elected to advocate for the best interests of all New Hampshire working families, and we urge them to remember that. As the bill moves to the House we’ll continue to do what we’ve always done: Stand with working families across the state to create a New Hampshire that works for everyone.”

 Along with a strong labor showing at the state house today, members of the New Hampshire Voices of Faith lobbied Senators as they entered the chamber. 

The working people of New Hampshire deserve better than to be steamrolled by out of state special interest groups pushing a bill that will not help New Hampshire workers in any way.

The so-called Right to Work bill will move to the NH House, where hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the bill will be killed.

AFT-NH Legislative Bulletin: Taking Action Against Right To Work

January 13, 2017

On Tuesday, January 10, hundreds packed Reps Hall in the State House for the Senate Commerce Committee public hearing on SB 11, the proposed “right to work” legislation. From 1 pm into the evening, a long line of witnesses, including Senators, Representatives, labor leaders, and working people (union and non-union) spoke against so-called “right to work” legislation. They pointed out that it would bring no new economic investment to NH, would inject the State into the negotiations process, and was simply an attempt to financially cripple labor unions and thereby weaken their ability to better the working conditions and the lives of those they represent. And then, at the end of the day, without taking any time to consider evidence presented, the Committee voted 3-2, along strict party lines, to send SB 11 onto the Senate, with a recommendation of “ought to pass.”

The full Senate is expected to vote on SB 11 (“right to work”) next week, in its session on Thursday, January 19. So what have we learned?

First, all the talk by Republican leaders regarding bipartisanship and cooperation “across the aisle” was just that, talk. It is clear that their strategy is to try to “fast track” and ram SB 11 through the NH Legislature as quickly as possible. Logic and reason and careful consideration of the issue are not part of the plan, because these would only slow down their anti-union and anti-working families agenda.

Second, we also see that many NH legislators are quite willing to do the bidding of out-of-state lobbying groups, such as Americans for Prosperity, the National Right to Work Committee, and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). All three draw significant funding from corporate sources, and in the case of ALEC, they are the actual authors of much of SB 11. The sponsors of SB 11 don’t even do their own work; rather, they copied large swathes of ALEC’s model or suggested “right to work” legislation and pasted it directly into SB 11. So what we now have is anti-union and anti-working families legislation written by corporate interest groups being foisted upon New Hampshire with little to no reasoned consideration or careful examination. This is the “selling” of New Hampshire. Perhaps this is what Gov. Sununu meant in his inauguration speech when he announced “New Hampshire is open for business.”

Two other major anti-labor bills also came forward this week. One, HB 520, is simply another version of ‘right-to-work,’ introduced in the NH House to be taken up in case the Senate version, SB 11, fails. The other bill is HB 438, which would bar all public employers from agreeing to payroll deduction of union dues, thereby making it much more difficult for unions to collect dues from members. This latter bill was part of Governor Scott Walker’s assault on public-sector labor unions in Wisconsin and has proven highly successful. There are no arguments here about freedom or rights—this is a straightforward effort to effectively destroy public sector unions, your unions. If anyone had doubts as to the intentions of our opponents, those doubts should now be erased. Their goal is clear—destruction of organized labor in New Hampshire.

What is there to do? Email your Senator or even better, call your Senator. Tell them who you are, that you are a union member, you oppose “right to work” and you want your senator to do so as well.

Who is your Senator? Go here to find out: Find Your Senator.

Need their email address or a phone number (office or home)? Go here and click on your Senator’s photo or use the email or office phone number listed on this page: Senator Contact Information

You need not be fancy or incredibly articulate—just a short message of who you are, what town you live in, and you want her/him to oppose right-to-work. And do it in the next few days, before they vote on January 19!

In Solidarity,

Douglas Ley

AFT-NH, President

NH AFL-CIO President Brackett’s Statement On SB11 Hearing, “Right to Work (For Less)”

Statement From New Hampshire AFL-CIO President Glenn Brackett
On First Legislative Hearing For SB11-FN, So-Called “Right to Work” Bill

Concord – New Hampshire AFL-CIO President, Glenn Brackett, released the following statement after the conclusion of the first hearing of the legislative session on a so-called “Right to Work” bill (SB11-FN): 

“I am grateful to all of our brothers and sisters who traveled from towns and cities across the Granite State to stand in Solidarity with us as we voiced our opposition to SB11, another so-called ‘Right to Work’ bill that is now before the New Hampshire State Senate. I was disappointed that after listening to four hours of impassioned testimony, from over one hundred speakers, that three members of the committee immediately voted to pass SB11 without further discussion or research. I would like to thank Senator Donna Soucy, and Senator Bette Lasky for voting against this deceptive legislation and standing up for New Hampshire working families. We will need your support in the fight ahead. 

Every two years, corporate special interest come to New Hampshire to try and pass ‘right to work for less’ legislation that would make life harder for New Hampshire working families. And every two years, concerned citizens, activists, union members and community leaders come together to fight for working families. In New Hampshire, bi-partisan support has defeated efforts to pass so-called ‘Right to Work’ legislation for decades because these laws only weaken workers’ freedom to bargain for respect, fair pay and safety on the job. Fraudulently-labeled ‘Right to Work’ is theft by deception legislation, and it remains wrong for New Hampshire. 

If the legislature is seriously interested in creating jobs and bringing business to New Hampshire, they should focus on lowering the cost of energy, and investing in education and infrastructure. New Hampshire deserves real solutions to real problems, and not partisan politics. The legislature was elected to advocate for the best interests of all New Hampshire working families, and that is why they must protect our rights and stop any form of so-called ‘Right to Work.’” 

AFT-NH President Ley’s Testimony Against SB11, “Right to Work”

Testimony of Douglas Ley In Opposition to Senate Bill 11

I am president of AFT-NH, representing 4000 teachers, para-educators, school support staff, town and municipal employees, police officers and first responders. As such, I have been asked to present letters from a number of our local presidents regarding this proposed legislation and ask that you read these with care and consideration. I have letters from the Presidents of the Hillsboro-Deering Federation of Teachers, Hudson Federation of Teachers, Newfound Teachers’ Union and Timberlane Teachers’ Association.

My own testimony shall be brief, to the point, and is rooted in my long-standing public opposition to so-called ‘right to work’ legislation as well as my membership in a private sector union local with agency fee. Within that local at Franklin Pierce University, over 90% of bargaining unit employees are full members of the union. One full-time employee and a small number of part-time employees opt for the lower agency fee or a third option provided within our contract, ‘charitable contribution.’

Our ‘agency fee’ is really a ‘recovery cost payment,’ which helps defray the cost of negotiation and the enforcement of our contract. We have a good relationship with our employer, but nevertheless, there are constant questions of contract interpretation as well as various personnel issues which arise each year, all of which require investments of time and resources to resolve, whether it be through local activity, working with our state federation, or even calling upon the resources of our national offices. Like us, our employer also incurs costs to negotiate and enforce our collective bargaining agreement. They recover their costs by incorporating them into the operating expenses of the University, charged against students and others using the University. All we ask is the continued ability to act in similar but more limited fashion, to have employees who benefit from the collective bargaining agreement contribute to defraying the costs of negotiation and implementation.

I have worked at FPU for 26 years, and during that entire span there has been an “agency fee” option. In keeping with Federal and NH statutes, no one is required to join the union, but all must contribute in some form as mandated by our collective bargaining agreement. In twenty-six years, I know of no individual who declined employment due to this requirement, and as stated earlier, virtually every eligible employee has joined the union. Management agreed to this provision many, many years ago and has never brought forward a proposal in negotiation to eliminate agency fee. Similarly, in my experience working for AFT-NH, I can state that approximately half of our locals have agency fee, and no employer has ever proposed eliminating it. It is a provision freely agreed to by the two signatory parties to a contract, and the contract is then duly ratified via democratic process by employees in the bargaining unit and the governing body of the public employer after approval by the legislative body. Therefore, it is an excellent illustration of local flexibility and local control, long-standing NH traditions. To pass this legislation will only further inject the State into what is a localized and in many cases, private relationship and process, setting the stage for possible further restrictions upon employers and the bargaining agents of employees.

In sum, “right to work” interferes with the freedom to negotiate and engage in collective bargaining and resolves a problem which does not exist. Statute already prohibits requiring union membership as a condition of employment, and every potential employee already has the right to decide to accept a job, with all the conditions and requirements laid out by the employer, which in this case, could include support for maintaining the mutually-agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement. I respectfully ask that this Committee honor that freedom and local control, by rejecting so-called “right to work” legislation.

Timberlane Teachers Association: “Right To Work” Is Disrespectful To Workers

January 8, 2017

 

Re: Written Testimony In Opposition to Senate Bill 11 

Dear Honorable Chairman Innis and Members of the Committee, 

Due to work obligations, I am unable to attend the hearing on Senate Bill 11. However, I would like my letter entered into the record.

I am a fourteen year teaching veteran at Timberlane Regional High School. I have proudly served my teachers’ union as a building representative, Vice President, and, currently, as President of the Timberlane Teachers Association, AFT #4796. I am proud to say that this union of professionals has worked tirelessly to improve working conditions and quality of life for our members. Our union is also an open shop: we do not charge an agency fee. This means that the hard work that our paying members provide benefit all professional employees in the Timberlane Regional School District. It is only because of the selfless efforts of the Timberlane Teachers Association that we have been able to provide a contract that respects the professionalism and work of our teachers as they prepare the next generation of civil servants, entrepreneurs, and leaders. The value of this important work is reflected in the contract that they work under. So-called “Right-to-Work” legislation, like SB 11, severely undermine the respect shown to these professionals and the work they are charged with doing.

Legislation, like SB 11, does not improve quality of life for employees and their families. It does not show the respect or value we, as a society, should be presenting these professionals with. Instead, it inserts the government into the private negotiations between the employee representatives and their employer. It is, at its heart, big government. It undermines trust that is built by years of cooperation and negotiation between employee unions and employers and results in poor-quality contracts for employees, if any contract at all.

So-called “Right-to-Work” legislation also hurts families and local economies. As we have seen made abundantly clear in states that have shortsightedly enacted such legislation, like Wisconsin, RtW laws result in lower pay for employees, fewer benefits, and a lower quality of life for citizens. When employee purchasing power is reduced or hampered by such conditions, it ultimately feeds into the local economy, resulting in depressed local markets and, eventually, a labor shortage, as RtW laws have never resulted in an influx of business to a state and as workers seek better conditions in states that respect and value them.

Finally, legislation like SB-11 are unnecessary in states like New Hampshire. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and state-level legislation, no employee is forced to join a union in New Hampshire. Membership is voluntary, already. Thus, the only reason for legislation like SB-11 is to undermine the good work of unions and erode away the hard fought improvements in quality of life achieved only because of the work of unions in America.

I ask that you vote Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 11 so we can move forward with a positive agenda for NH. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ryan Neal Richman
President, Timberlane Teachers Association, AFT 4796

AFSC-NH’s Testimony Against SB 11, “Right To Work”

Statement on SB 11, prohibiting collective bargaining agreements that require employees to join or contribute to a labor union

January 10, 2017 

I am Arnie Alpert, Co-Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s New Hampshire Program. I am also a member of UNITE-HERE Local 66L and the UNITE-HERE New England Joint Board. I am pleased to be able to appear before you today both as a union member and as a representative of my employer to urge your rejection of the so-called “right to work” bill.

The American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker organization that turns 100 years old this year. Throughout almost our entire history, going back to 1922 when we provided humanitarian assistance to unemployed coal miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, we have assisted working people who have sought to better their lives and working conditions. In 1936, a year after President Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act, the AFSC Social-Industrial Section drafted a statement “on the attitude that the AFSC should take towards organized labor.” The statement noted, in part:

Collective bargaining by groups of workers with employers is therefore desirable in order that workers may meet management on something like equal terms when they bargain for rates of pay, conditions of work, and security of employment.

Since then, from the textile mills of North Carolina to the orange groves of Florida to the grape fields of California, to the maquiladora factories along the Mexican border, and in countless kitchens and construction sites, the AFSC has stood with people who have sought employment, living wages, and dignity on the job.

The ability of working people to attain a decent standard of living is threatened in our country and in our state. According to the NH Housing Finance Authority, the statewide median rent of a two-bedroom apartment in New Hampshire was $1206 in 2016. That means it takes an income of more than $48,000 a year to afford a typical apartment. That’s more than three times what a worker makes at the current minimum wage.

If the purpose of SB 11 was to provide jobs at decent wages so that working people could afford decent housing, we would be enthusiastic about it. But what is called “right to work” is not about ensuring that all people have the right to a decent job. To the contrary, it is about undermining the ability of working people to organize among themselves and bargain collectively with their employers.

By making it more difficult for workers to organize, “right to work” would force down the wage levels of all working people in New Hampshire. The ability to afford health care would be threatened. The ability to pay taxes to support schools would be diminished. The state’s housing crisis would intensify. More people would seek public assistance.

Over the years, in this country and around the world, the American Friends Service Committee has observed that strong unions help their members better their wages and working conditions, but also can be powerful advocates for human rights and a better standard of living for everyone.

If you are interested in reducing poverty and giving more people access to decent jobs, you should recommend this bill inexpedient to legislate.

Hudson Federation Of Teachers President’s Testimony Opposing SB 11 “Right To Work”

Honorable Daniel Innis, Chairman
Senate Commerce Committee
107 North Main Street
Concord NH 03301 

Re: Written Testimony In Opposition to Senate Bill 11

Dear Honorable Chairman Innis and Members of the Committee,

Due to work obligations, I am unable to attend the hearing on Senate Bill 11. However, I would like my letter entered into the record.

I have been an educator in New Hampshire for over fifteen years. Today’s educators face many challenges, as the expectations placed on teachers have increased to issues beyond the classroom over the past decade. We no longer just need to be concerned with curriculum and assessment; we now need to often act as surrogate parents. Without the protection of a union, teachers could be exposed to unrealistic expectations as districts struggle to solve cultural problems through the classroom.

Unions help towns be competitive when they are seeking qualified applicants. Unions provide employees with fair wages and benefits, which can’t be changed through the whim of temporary board members. Unions allow employees to have a voice, without the fear of repercussions, which creates an environment where the best solutions can be sought to create the best outcomes for students.

As president of the Hudson Federation of Teachers, we have over 98% of our members choosing to join the union. They understand what being a union member provides for them. No member is forced to join, but our members appreciate having supplemental insurance, members who negotiate contracts for them, and members who will represent them should they request it. Unions make working situations better for everyone.

With all the challenges facing New Hampshire, such as the opioid crisis, it seems that there are other issues that requires the time and energy of our legislators rather than fix something that is not broken.

I ask that you vote Inexpedient to Legislate on Senate Bill 11 so we can move forward with a positive agenda for NH. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Lavoie

President, Hudson Federation of Teachers Local 2263

Republican, Teacher, and Union President, Opposes So-Called Right To Work In NH

Written Testimony From  Richard (Alex) Luhtjarv, President, Hillsboro-Deering Federation of Teachers, Opposing SB 11

Dear Senator Avard,

I am writing to you as my State Senator and asking you to vote no on SB 11. I am a Republican, but also the President of a local teachers’ union. While many may feel that those two positions are contradictory, I do not. The reasons why I am both are very similar – I feel the Republican party AND labor unions protect the value of hard work. I was taught that the key to lifelong success was giving it 110% in school and at work.

As a teacher, I pass on those values. However, in my 17 years as an educator, I have been a witness to many situations where quality teachers have been subjected to unfair decisions in which the union was their only defender. There is value in that service to defend hard work.

I have also been a part of three different negotiating teams and each time, we worked together with the district to negotiate fiscally responsible contracts with fair pay and benefits while trying to mitigate the burden on taxpayers. There is value in that service to reward families of workers who have dedicated their careers to helping their students become productive members of the community.

Right to work bills are shortsighted. Our union currently has 100% participation among the teachers of our district. All of our teachers have benefited from the services provided by their local union. We use dues to help support that local work in advocacy of member interests and through collective bargaining. We also use dues to contribute to local charities and organizations, such as the food pantry and local youth athletic association.

Right to work would undermine our ability to continue to be a positive presence in our community. I hope that as a fellow Republican, you will read this letter, and 1. Consider voting against SB 11, but 2. Realize that the stereotypes that exist about unions in 2017 are just not accurate.
Thank you for your time and consideration,

Richard (Alex) Luhtjarv

President, Hillsboro-Deering Federation of Teachers

  • Subscribe to the NH Labor News via Email

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 12,327 other subscribers

  • Advertisement

  • Advertisement