Why right to work laws are bad

But, after controlling for a full complement of observable factors related to unionization—industry, occupation, education, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status—we find that private- sector workers in RTW states are 5. It is important to note that while this difference certainly reflects the impact of RTW laws, it may also reflect the effect of unobservable factors that are correlated with both RTW and unionization at the state level, such as other anti-union policies or practices.

Based on the findings from Oklahoma, we could expect that if RTW were implemented in Missouri, the private-sector union coverage rate in the state would fall to 5.

This would mean that nearly 60, fewer Missourians would benefit from being covered by a union contract compared with what we see today.

RTW is just one of these factors. Contrary to the claims of RTW proponents, there is no causal pattern of RTW states growing faster or slower—or having better or worse employment indicators—than other states. For instance, in , both the highest labor force participation rate in the country in North Dakota and the lowest in West Virginia were in states with RTW laws. Reviewing claims of faster-than-average employment growth in RTW states, a report found dramatic employment growth in some RTW states but steep declines in others, with the high-growth states skewing the average.

For additional insights, we can turn to a rigorous assessment of the impact of RTW on employment in neighboring Oklahoma. Prior to the passage of their RTW law, Oklahoma lawmakers were told that if they passed an RTW law, there would be an eight- to tenfold increase in the number of new companies coming into the state—especially in manufacturing.

But more than 15 years after Oklahoma adopted RTW, none of the promises made by its supporters have come to pass. If Missourians were to approve an RTW law for their state, they could expect similar results. Unemployment is another key indicator of labor market health. However, Missouri has experienced a stronger recovery and by , Missouri had the same level of unemployment as its neighbors—3. Without RTW laws , Missouri was able to bring its unemployment rate down 5. And in fact, the broader policy agenda often associated with RTW has been shown to be detrimental to state outcomes.

Non-RTW Minnesota had stronger job growth, faster wage growth, faster-shrinking gender pay gaps, and greater poverty reduction than its right-to work neighbor. As shown earlier, there is no clear body of evidence that right-to-work laws, in and of themselves, currently have a significant impact on employment growth.

But it is worth noting that if they ever did, there is good reason to believe that any such impact would have been eroded by time. In one part, this is the simple logic of competition. To the extent that right-to-work is a draw for manufacturers, its effect would be greatest on the first state to adopt such a statute. If 49 states protected union security and only one had a right-to-work law, employers to whom this policy mattered would all be drawn to that location.

The prospect of becoming the latest right-to-work state in the country is much different. Now any competitive advantage a state might realize would have to be sufficiently powerful enough to draw footloose employers to that state not only over the non-RTW states but also over the other RTW states with identical labor laws. In addition, to the extent that RTW laws helped draw northern unionized manufacturing firms into lower-wage and less-organized jurisdictions in the South, this dynamic has long since played itself out.

Any measure of comparative job growth over the past several decades captures the deindustrialization of the Northeast and upper Midwest and the mass relocation of firms to the South starting in the s, whether in search of cheaper wages, cheaper land, warmer climates, or less regulation.

That wave of relocation may show up in the long-term employment growth of Southern states, but at this point the relocation is complete. There is no such ongoing wave of relocation from which states newly adopting RTW laws might hope to benefit.

Other, recent research has shown that the impact of right-to-work on the probability of male non-employment has lessened over time and by , right-to-work had effectively no impact. Unionization raises wages for both union members and nonunion workers in unionized sectors. Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.

It often indicates a user profile. Log out. US Markets Loading H M S In the news. Paul Constant. Larson says these laws leave workers with lower pay and less employer-provided health insurance. Get a daily selection of our top stories based on your reading preferences.

Loading Something is loading. Email address. Further, arguing that adopting RTW laws will make states more appealing to businesses reveals the true intentions of RTW proponents: undermining unions to lower wages. Note that all findings in this report are for public- and private-sector workers, unless explicitly stated otherwise. While the Montana RTW law would apply to public- and private-sector unions, in effect it targets private-sector unions because of a Supreme Court case that prohibited fair share fees in union contracts covering government workers.

RTW laws were first enacted in the late s in response to the large expansion of union representation that occurred in many U. Muse and his allies viewed the prospect of solidarity between Black workers and working-class white workers as a threat to the racist social hierarchy in the South, and the political dominance of wealthy white plantation owners and industrialists. In the s, the CAA succeeded in passing a variety of anti-union laws in the South, including RTW laws, as a means of helping ensure that workers remained divided along racial lines Kromm ; Pierce Under the federal law that protects the right of private-sector workers to engage in collective action the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA , unions must represent all workers covered by a union contract, even those who choose to not be a part of the union.

Under the law, unions are obligated to represent every worker in a bargaining unit if a majority of the unit votes to unionize, regardless of whether a worker joins the union. In fair share states, unions and employers can negotiate to require every worker who is represented by the union and receives the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement to pay a fair share fee in the form of union dues or a dues equivalent.

For example, condo and homeowner associations require fees to cover the collective costs of upkeep and improvements. Similarly, attorneys cannot appear in court unless they are dues-paying members of the state bar association. Yet in RTW states, unions are forced to provide all the benefits of a union contract for free to workers who choose not to pay their fair share. Proponents also sometimes claim that RTW laws ensure that no one is forced to be a member of a union or to pay to advocate for political causes they do not support.

However, federal law already prohibits workers from being required to join a union as a condition of employment and forbids unions from spending membership dues on political activity. RTW laws limit fair share fees, which specifically cover the costs of union representation, not political advocacy.

By restricting union resources, RTW laws make it harder for workers to exercise their right to organize a union and collectively bargain. On average, only 7. This pattern is the same when looking only at the private sector. Just 5.

Even after controlling for other factors that can be related to unionization—industry, occupation, education, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status—private-sector workers in RTW states are still 5. Figure A shows that Montana and its neighbors mirror this nationwide pattern.

While 6. Note: The coverage rate in neighboring RTW states is calculated by averaging the coverage rate in each state. The employer-employee relationship always has a fundamental power imbalance, which companies often exploit to deny workers their fair share.

By coming together in a union to negotiate with their employer, workers can negotiate higher wages, better benefits, safer worker conditions, and a more democratic workplace. The benefits of this collective action are clearly shown by examining wage data; wages are consistently higher for union workers than nonunion workers. It is important to note that some of these wage differences are affected by other factors related to union membership.

For example, union members tend to have higher levels of education and experience, resulting in higher wages that are not the direct result of collective bargaining. Unions also pour lots of resources into training workers to do their jobs safely. This trend can also be seen in states with low union density, where fatality rates are about twice as high compared to states with high union density. In fact, a University of Michigan study found that for every five percent that union density increases, states can expect a one percent decrease in deaths on the job.

Increasing evidence shows that public health is also better overall in states without right-to-work laws. While personal behavioral choices contribute to rankings like these, the UHF also factors in health policies and the availability of clinical care in each state.

In , eight of the top 10 healthiest states were free from right-to-work laws, while nine of the 10 unhealthiest states were right-to-work.