Posted 1:38 am Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Right-To-Work Win In Indiana
Workers' unions shouldn't be outlawed.
But neither should working.
That's why a move made by Indiana last week is laudable.
But neither should working.
That's why a move made by Indiana last week is laudable.
“Indiana became the Rust Belt's first right-to-work state Wednesday in a move that is sure to embolden advocates seeking to curtail union rights across the country,” the Associated Press reported. “Gov. Mitch Daniels' signature Wednesday on the bill that made Indiana the nation's 23rd right-to-work state was the end of a contentious two-year political battle that included partisan bickering, lawmaker walkouts, legislative stall tactics and union protests.
In the end, Indiana marked the first win for national right-to-work supporters who tried in vain last year to push the measure, despite a Republican sweep of statehouses nationwide in 2010.”
In the end, Indiana marked the first win for national right-to-work supporters who tried in vain last year to push the measure, despite a Republican sweep of statehouses nationwide in 2010.”
Right-to-work states don't ban unions; indeed, Texas has dozens if not hundreds of active unions. But you don't have to be a member of a union — and be forced to pay the dues — just to get a job. And that's freedom.
At one times, powerful labor unions controlled both the workplace and the statehouse in many parts of the country.
At one times, powerful labor unions controlled both the workplace and the statehouse in many parts of the country.
“Thirty years ago, the labor unions in Indiana and throughout the Midwest were very robust, dominated many of the mainline manufacturing, assembly plants,” explained economics professor Michael Hicks of Ball State University. “They have gone away and have been replaced by smaller plants, more difficult to unionize. And, more nimble, very different workforce,” Hicks said. “It's a good indication of the end of the line for labor unions doing what they've been doing for the past couple of decades.”
Research shows that Indiana made a wise choice.
Research shows that Indiana made a wise choice.
“Right-to-work states are much more attractive for businesses investment,” reports James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. “Unionized firms earn lower profits, invest less, and create fewer jobs than comparable nonunion firms. Boeing's decision to build a new plant in South Carolina — a right-to-work state — illustrates a larger trend. Businesses consider the presence (or absence) of a right-to-work law a major factor when deciding where to locate. It was no accident that foreign automobile brands located their U.S. plants primarily in right-to-work states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Research suggests that foreign direct investment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased after these states passed right-to-work laws.”
And that investment translates directly into jobs.
“In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates than states without right-to-work laws,” Sherk adds.
And despite the dire warnings from the unions, the effects on wages are generally positive.
“Unions restrict the supply of jobs in unionized companies,” Sherk says. “This reduces the pay of nonunion workers — they do not have as many good job opportunities — while raising the wages of union members. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls.”
But there's a moral argument to be made, as well.
“Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs,” Sherk explains. “This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union's agenda … In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose.”
And that investment translates directly into jobs.
“In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates than states without right-to-work laws,” Sherk adds.
And despite the dire warnings from the unions, the effects on wages are generally positive.
“Unions restrict the supply of jobs in unionized companies,” Sherk says. “This reduces the pay of nonunion workers — they do not have as many good job opportunities — while raising the wages of union members. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls.”
But there's a moral argument to be made, as well.
“Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs,” Sherk explains. “This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union's agenda … In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose.”
