|
What is Right-to-Work?
To set the record (and the name) straight, Right-to-Work for less doesn’t guarantee any rights. In fact, by weakening unions and collective bargaining, it destroys the best job security protection that exists: the union contract. Meanwhile, it allows workers to pay nothing and get all the benefits of union membership. Right-to-Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.
• Right-to-work laws lower wages for everyone. The average worker in a Right-to-Work state makes $5,538 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($39,169 compared with $44,707). Weekly wages are $92 greater in free-bargaining states than in right-to-work states ($771.25 versus $679.55). Working families in states without Right-to-Work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
• Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim Right-to-Work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Yet federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.
• Right-to-Work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job. Unions have a long history of fighting for tougher safety and health rules in the workplace. Right-to-Work weakens unions, thereby weakening unions’ efforts to maintain and strengthen workplace safety and health standards. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.
• Right-to-Work laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members. If a worker who is represented by a union but is not a member is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly legal process. Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so all should share in the costs of providing these services. Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union if they think it has not represented them well enough.
Sources: AFL-CIO, Death on the Job, 2010; Fred Feinstein, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment, and Government Programs in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on Freedom in the Workplace – an Examination of a National Right to Work Law, September 8, 2005; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009, June 2010, (weekly wages are for full-time workers).
The Truth About
Right-to-Work for Less
Right-to-Work Hurts Everyone
Workers in states with Right-to-Work laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in free bargaining states – lower wages; higher poverty, child poverty, and infant mortality rates; a greater likelihood of being uninsured; poorer education for their children; and a greater likelihood of being killed on the job.
Right-to-Work States Have Lower Wages and Incomes
• The average worker in a Right-to-Work state makes $5,538 a year less than workers in free-bargaining states ($39,169 compared with $44,707). Weekly wages are $92 greater in free-bargaining states than in Right-to-Work states ($771.25 versus $679.55).
• Median household income Right-to-Work states is $6,184 less than in Free-Bargaining states ($46,328 versus $52,513).
• 28.3 percent of the jobs in Right-to-Work states are in low wage occupations (defined as less than the amount needed to bring a family of four above the poverty line), compared with only 19.5 percent of jobs in Free Bargaining states.
Right-to-Work States Have a Larger Share of Uninsured Residents and a Smaller Share of Residents with Employment-Based Health Insurance
• People in Right-to-Work states are more likely to be uninsured than people in free-bargaining states (16.7 percent versus 13.5 percent). Also, uninsured rates rose faster between 2000 and 2009 in Right to Work states (by 3.2 percentage points) than in Free Bargaining states (by only 1.9 percentage points).
• Children in Right-to-Work states are also more likely to be uninsured than children in free bargaining states (10.4 percent versus 7.5 percent).
• Residents of Right-to-Work states are less likely to have employment-based health insurance than residents of Free-Bargaining states (55.0 percent versus 59.3 percent).
• Employers in Right-to-Work states are also less likely to offer health insurance to their workers than employers in Free-Bargaining states (50.3 percent versus 56.7 percent). That difference is even more significant among small employers (those with less than 50 workers). In Right-to-Work states, only 34.6 percent of small employers offer their workers health insurance, compared with 43.8 percent of all small employers in Free-Bargaining states.
Right-to-Work States Have Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
• Poverty rates are higher in Right-to-Work states (19.1 percent for all people and 26.0 percent for children) than in Free Bargaining states (16.6 percent for all people and 23.3 percent for children).
• The infant mortality rate is 16.0 percent higher in Right-to-Work states than in Free-Bargaining states.
Right-to-Work States Spend Less on Education
• Right-to-Work states spend $2,671 less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than free-bargaining states.
• Students in Right-to-Work states are less likely to be at grade level in math and reading. In Right-to-Work states, 29.6 percent of 8th grade students are proficient in math (compared with 33.2 percent in Free-Bargaining states) and 28.1 percent are proficient in reading (compared with 32.1 percent in Free-Bargaining states).
• Residents of Right-to-Work states are also less likely to have high school and college degrees. In Right-to-Work states, 84.9 percent of people 25 and older have completed high school (compared with 86.9 percent in Free Bargaining states) and 24.5 percent of people 25 and older have completed college (compared with 28.4 percent in Free-Bargaining states).
Right-to-Work States Have Higher Workplace Fatality Rates
• According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.
Sources: AFL-CIO, Death on the Job, 2010; Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2009-2010 Assets and Opportunities Scorecard; Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts.org National Education Association, Rankings and Estimates - Rankings of the States 2009 and Estimates of School Statistics 2010, December 2009; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009, June 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2010.
The Truth About
Right-to-Work for Less
Right-to-Work Laws Don’t Improve Living Standards – Unions Improve Living Standards
Union Workers Earn More
• Overall, union members earn 28 percent ($198) more per week than nonunion workers. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics and African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.
Union Workers Are More Likely to Have Employer-Provided Benefits
• 78 percent of private sector union workers have access to medical insurance through their jobs, compared with 51 percent of nonunion workers. And 77 percent of private sector union workers have access to a guaranteed (defined benefit) retirement plan through their jobs, compared with just 20 percent of nonunion workers.
Union Workers Are Also Far Less Likely to Be Uninsured
• Only 2.9 percent of union workers are uninsured, compared with 14.2 percent of nonunion workers.
Union Wage and Benefit Improvements Spill Over to Nonunion Workers
The wage and benefit improvements that union members achieve through collective bargaining also benefit nonunion workers by putting upward pressure on their wages and benefits. According to Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute, wage gains negotiated by union workers through collective bargaining often spill over, in part, to nonunion workers.
• More workers earning higher union wages means there are fewer workers who will work for less. This forces low-paying employers to raise wages to get or keep employees.
• Higher union wages means more consumers with more money to spend. This leads to more jobs and less unemployment. When fewer people are unemployed, employers must offer higher wages to attract workers.
• Studies show that unions increase productivity by encouraging new technology, labor management coordination and increased training. To survive, nonunion competitors often increase their use of technology and train workers in new skills, making them eligible for higher wages.
• Employers often offer nonunion workers higher wages to prevent them from organizing. So just the threat of workers joining a union benefits nonunion members.
Right-to-Work laws weaken union efforts to improve wages and benefits for all workers, union and nonunion alike. Right-to-Work, plain and simple, means lower wages for all workers.
Sources: Employee Benefits Research Institute, EBRI Notes, October 2009; Henry S. Farber, "Are Unions Still a Threat? Wages and the Decline of Unions, 1973-2001," unpublished, 2002; Freeman and Medoff, What Do Unions Do?, 1984; Mishel and Voos, Unions and Economic Competitiveness, 1992; Lawrence Mishel with Matthew Walters, How Unions Help All Workers, Economic Policy Institute, August 2003; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States, March 2009, September 2009; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Members - 2009, January 22, 2010.
The Truth About
Right to Work for Less
Right to Work Hurts Women and People of Color Most
By holding down union membership, Right-to-Work laws hurt all workers but especially women and people of color, who benefit most from belonging to a union.
• Women workers benefit significantly from belonging to a union. Union women earn $212 more each week (34 percent more) than nonunion women.
• Union membership narrows the pay gap for women. Nationally, the gap between men’s and women’s weekly earnings is 19.8 percent-- but between all men and union women the gap is only 12.2 percent.
• Hispanic union members benefit significantly from belonging to a union. Hispanic union members earn 50 percent ($258) more each week than nonunion Hispanics.
• African American union members benefit significantly from belonging to a union. African Americans earn 29 percent ($168) more each week if they are union members.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Members - 2009, January 22, 2010.
The Truth About
Right to Work for Less
What’s at Stake for Unionized Employers?
Unionized employers have a lot to gain by standing up for workers’ rights and opposing Right-to-Work laws:
• Right-to-Work makes it harder for unionized employers to compete for business. Many unions retain their membership in Right-to-Work states, although adding new bargaining units is made more difficult. This means that while unionized employers stay unionized, nonunion firms can remain unorganized and gain an even greater competitive advantage based on low-wage, no-benefit jobs.
• That’s especially true in construction. Unionized construction companies may have the most to gain from opposing Right-to-Work and other attacks on union membership. Unionized construction companies compete largely on the basis of better quality work because they provide more training, have fewer injuries on the job and are more productive. All these competitive advantages are threatened when low-road companies can drive down wages because of anti-union legislation.
• Right to work reduces consumer spending. Because union membership means higher wages, higher unionization within a community means consumers have more to spend. That’s good for local companies, especially those in retail sales and services.
• Right to work brings government interference to private enterprise. A Right-to-Work law takes union security off the bargaining table. In effect, government limits the right of employers to set the terms and conditions of employment by telling companies and their workers what they can and can’t bargain over. Labor and management should have the freedom to agree upon the conditions of work--without the government dictating to them.
The Truth About
Right-to-Work for Less
Standards of Living Are Better in Strong Union States
Right-to-Work supporters claim that such laws are good for state economies – but the evidence shows that people in states with a strong union presence actually have a better standard of living than those residing in weak union states.
In the ten states where unions are strongest:
• Wages and incomes are higher;
• Workplaces are safer;
• Worker safety net programs like Workers’ Compensation and Unemployment Insurance are more generous;
• Residents, including children, are less likely to be poor;
• Residents, including children, are more likely to be insured;
• A larger share of employers, including small employers, offer health insurance, residents are more likely to have employment based health insurance, and employers pay a larger share of health insurance premiums;
• Spending on education is higher and student achievement is greater; and
• Infant mortality rates are lower
than in the ten states where unions are weakest. Clearly, workers are better off when they have strong unions. States looking to improve conditions for working families should focus instead on supporting efforts to protect the freedom of workers to form unions.
Right to work laws make it harder for unions to represent workers effectively, with harmful consequences for all workers and their communities. States should work instead to call upon Congress to allow free bargaining in every state. Congress should repeal the part of the National Labor Relations Act that allows states to pass Right-to-Work laws.
Sources: AFL-CIO, Death on the Job, 2010; Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2009-2010 Assets and Opportunities Scorecard; Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts.Org; National Education Association, Rankings of the States 2009 and Estimates of School Statistics 2010, December 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws, 2010; U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, Background Material and Data on the Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 2008.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
