Credit Gov. Steve Beshear with working hard during his first term to bringing jobs to Kentucky and enjoying some success.

We submit his success would have been greater if Kentucky protected worker choice with a right-to-work law.

As a governor who is beholden to the unions, which gave him large political donations in last year’s elections, Beshear is simply holding our state back by not supporting right-to-work legislation.

As if Kentucky didn’t already have enough competition for jobs with neighboring right-to-work states, Tennessee and Virginia, we now learn that the Indiana House and Senate have passed identical right-to-work legislation and Gov. Mitch Daniels is expected to sign it into law.

Good for Indiana. They chose to make their state more appealing to companies looking to create jobs there. No doubt Indiana will be getting some jobs that Kentucky might have landed got if we were a right-to-work state and they deserve to because they chose the right path.

Kentucky hasn’t.

Unfortunately, Mr. Beshear and Kentucky now have another bordering state to the north with an advantage over the commonwealth in the competition for jobs.

Unions in Indiana as well as Kentucky have a large political footprint, but it is important to note that Indiana has a higher union presence than Kentucky. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010 Indiana’s workforce was 12.2 percent unionized, whereas in that same year Kentucky’s workforce was 10.1 percent unionized.

Indiana was able to get this passed because the House and Senate in that state are controlled by Republicans. Daniels is a Republican as well.

Regardless of party, this is a no-brainer and it is beyond sad that we are stuck with a governor and a Democratic controlled House that won’t even entertain the issue that could attract jobs at no cost to taxpayers.

Politicians in Kentucky should be concerned though since every state south of us is a right-to-work state and 23 states in all, counting Indiana, will offer employees freedom to choose whether they pay union dues or not.

Kentucky has had one hand tied behind its back for decades because it not a right-to-work state. Mr. Beshear and others in the political class can continue to hold this state back which watching some businesses eliminate Kentucky as a potential location right out of the starting gate.

Given the choice, individuals as well as companies, prefer freedom. The Berlin Wall demonstrated that individuals would opt for freedom even at risk of their lives.

In this land that cherishes liberty, the concept of compelling workers to pay union dues against their will some day will be relegated to the dust bin of history in all 50 states.

(6) comments


Silas brought up what I was thinking, right-to-work may just bring the lower paying jobs.
We need more high paying jobs, not $10 an hour jobs. Yeah there better than nothin
I think Tennessee has a better tax rate for businesses than Ky, another reason we lose jobs to them.
Seems I remember HCA moving there corporate offices from Louisville to Nashville to save taxes??


the reason kentucky is not getting jobs is because we are a poor state, mostly rural, and mostly un-educated, why would anybody choose kentucky except for minimum wage jobs or because we have the "right to work for less ", don't blame this mess on right to work vs. not, that is a smoke screen, kentuckians need to own up to the fact that we are a people represented by "turtleman" or other toothless characters, we are represented by a redneck governor, if kentucky is going to remove itself from the bad hollywood image, it needs to start from our leader, that redneck hillbilly governor, but we must be like that if we elected hPr


If you look at the median income by state the poorer half of the country is 2/3's right to work states.

Michelle's husband
Michelle's husband

All the "right to work" states are recalling their governors who implemented the law.. The KOCH brothers are financing these laws, enough said.


In a "right to work" state if the majority of workers at Acme Company vote to join a union than individual workers still have the right to not join the union and not pay union dues. They still get all the benefits of being in the union, higher wages, better benefits ect...........

If the majority of workers at Acme Company vote not to join the union than individual workers DON'T have the right to stay in/join a union. That is called hypocrisy.

The author also writes- "Given the choice, individuals as well as companies, prefer freedom. The Berlin Wall demonstrated that individuals would opt for freedom even at risk of their lives". The author just being manipulative.

We all support freedom, freedom isn't in question here. If freedom is an issue here than why does a union that wins a better wages, or wins better benefits still OBLIGATED to represent an individual that doesn't pay any union dues or support them? Hypocrisy.

Silas Dogwood
Silas Dogwood

There is a bit more to the issue than just the requirement that workers pay dues at a unionized business. One should examine the kinds of jobs that right to work states attract. They are often not very good jobs. We need long term stable employment--jobs that pay enough to allow workers to buy homes and keep the economy growing. Minimum wage temporary jobs will not achieve those goals. Most job creation occurs in the area of start-ups and small business, most of which probably aren't affected by the present rules anyway.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.