RIGHT TO WORK LAWS AND REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

 

I had occasion recently in a meeting with a state employee, tasked with promoting economic growth, to inquire about the status of “right to work” legislation. Not surprisingly, as we were in a deep blue state, she informed me that the states labor laws were very much a sacred cow where no change was in the works. I next asked if she felt that our state government was in fact a representative government and if it is should it not represent the people. Her answer was definite and declarative, she said and “Our state government is representative and it does represent the people.” With that preamble those of you who know me or regularly read this blog can imagine how easily I was able to deconstruct her assertion. I pointed out that only 6.6% of the private workforce in the state is unionized and that only 36% of the public workforce is unionized. The percentage of the entire workforce when taken together that is unionized is only 11.3%. I asked her again, if she didn’t want to reconsider her answer under the circumstances. She seemed taken aback so I took the opportunity to offer that any government that represented 11.3% of the people to the detriment of almost 89% of the population is hardly representative. Every way that one tries to characterize a government that caters to such a small fraction of the population is repulsive to the average liberal and conjures up, in their mind, republican administrations not democratic ones. The meeting we were sitting in was taking place at her request to try to persuade our company to build our new tractor assembly plant in her state. I informed her that we would not consider doing so because of the states lack of right to work laws. She then asked me how I thought it was fair to suggest that the state outlaw collective bargaining. It is almost painful to attempt to have a substantive discussion with someone so unacquainted with the facts. It was probably pointless in retrospect to try to educate her but that didn’t stop me from trying. I explained that right to work laws do not stop or limit collective bargaining and that they just restrict unions from being able to forcibly unionize employees who wish to opt out. The laws also prohibit the unions from collecting dues from those employees that do not join the union. Her response was just as memorable as it was wrong. She said that I couldn’t be correct and that no law could force someone to join a union if they didn’t want to.

The fact is that unemployment is lower and job growth is greater in states with right to work laws. The average wage for a given job is lower in these states so companies that are trying to compete with foreign competitors are naturally inclined to locate there. The last state to pass right to work legislation is Michigan, the home of the collective bargaining movement in America. Michigan has seen the damage done to their economy by so many years of union influence and decided to change their laws. I wonder if we all need to go through the hell that Detroit and the rest of Michigan has before making the changes in our state statutes. When Wisconsin changed their laws over to “right to work” 40% of the union workforce left the unions. The inescapable conclusion was that 4 out of 10 workers were paying union dues against their will. Collective bargaining is legal in states with right to work laws but coerced union membership is not and that is why big labor fights so hard against the trend. I believe that forcing someone to join a union as a condition of employment in this day and age in America is appalling.