The irrelevance of right-to-work laws
But both sides of the debate are alike in one thing: blowing the issue out of proportion. For a long time, we’ve had a bloc of states with right-to-work laws and a bloc of states without. In both places, with few exceptions, the decline of unions has been steady. Regardless of whether policies like these get enacted or repealed, it’s only going to continue.
It’s not even clear that right-to-work laws by themselves make a meaningful difference in anything. Iowa is a right-to-work state, but its unionization rate is higher than that next door in Missouri, which is not. Kansas has a bigger union presence with right-to-work than adjacent Colorado has without.
One big study cited by supporters found that when Oklahoma passed one of these measures, it reduced union membership but had no effect on manufacturing employment or earnings. Idaho saw an increase in manufacturing jobs but none in per capita income. All this brings to mind what screenwriter William Goldman said is the crucial fact about the movie business: “Nobody knows anything.”
Right-to-work laws are not the reason unionization has shrunk so dramatically.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It had an effect on my pay check when I was a graduate student forced to give money to the UAW.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM
The union thugs are not getting money to give to bho/d’s to help them get jobs and re-elect those like bho! The workers can work, not have to pay union thugs higher ups to do whatever they wish with the dues? So to me, ‘right to work’ works? Sucks to be a union thug in ‘right to work’ states? LETS just hope the states get on board to do the same?
L
letget on December 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Yeah, he seems to analyze every possible effect except union coffers which is ultimately what this is about.
ChrisL on December 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Yep.
Count to 10 on December 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM
There is no such thing as giving an employee the choice not to join the union a “free ride”, except a dictated by the union. Steve Chapman, you don’t even remotely know what you are writing about. You bite on the statement “give some employees a free ride” as if it had a basis in fact. Beside the free ride the 53% is giving the 47 percent (you and the unions don’t seem to object to that), the so-called “free ride” is entirely at the direction of the union. They don’t want employees in the shop that they don’t represent and control; they know they will suffer at the comparison. The unions are the ones that insist that be write that into the contract. She second reason they written into every contract, is that they are afraid another union will be started or invited in to compete with them. You highly, IV league educated, media types are all guilty of error, hubris, and elitist thinking. Some time, in your spare time, research what you are writing about. You too Ed, Jazz, and AP. The “free ride” slogan is a widespread, easily proved lie.
Old Country Boy on December 17, 2012 at 8:12 PM
writeI put an “n” on the end of the word, but I guess it didn’t take. s/b written.Old Country Boy on December 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM
This.
Why will no one respond to the “free-ride” argument anywhere? I was stunned when I took a job teaching in public school to discover that the school district negotiated away any power to bargain with me. I asked to be paid off the step-lane grid; I am not a union member, and I had some good data to prove my worth. Principal informed that as much as he’d like to pay me that way, he couldn’t because the collective bargaining agreement with the “professional association” (this was a right-to-work state) precluded that. I found out he was right!
Why do they get to do that? Why do they get to prevent an employer from entering into other “labor” contracts but theirs? Why is this third party allowed to come between the right of the employer and me to negotiate?
Grrr….
pascelle on December 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Right-to-work laws may or may not roll back compulsory unionization, but they help keep it from coming back. It’s not enough to win a victory, you must consolidate it and protect your gains.
njcommuter on December 17, 2012 at 11:04 PM