All news
Right to Work for Less Not Right for Indiana
January 09, 2012
This article was penned by Allen County Democratic Party Executive Director Jack Morris:
There have recently been articles concerning legislation
called “right-to-work” (RTW). Articles in favor of this legislation provided unsubstantiated claims and misleading information. They
contend it is more difficult to attract businesses to Indiana without this legislation. These
claims are not consistent with
actual facts. At the end of this article I list numerous sources anyone can
read to learn real facts. A fair review of the facts, as opposed to unsupported claims, demonstrates
RTW legislation is not in the best interest of Indiana or its workers.
At the outset I acknowledge the right of those who
advocate for RTW legislation. We need a full and complete discussion of any
topic. However, we should look facts in support of each view and not rest upon
bare assertion without verifiable facts. A review of the facts related to RTW
legislation causes me to oppose this legislation.
Before an informed discussion on RT, it is appropriate to
address the name. This legislation does not create any job or the right to any
job. Further, the ‘right’ which it
confers carries significant negative consequences with far reaching impact on
the ability of a worker to obtain a job with a living wage (a wage which
enables the worker to support his or her self and a family). These consequences lead opponents of RTW legislation to
label this legislation as ‘right to work for less.’ In 2001, Monsignor Higgins
the former director of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic
Welfare Conference and longtime advisor to the U.S. Catholic Bishops on labor
and civil rights, poverty, and religious tolerance pointed out that the “pressure for [right-to-work]
legislation does not arise from workers seeking their ‘rights.’ Proponents are
uniformly employers’ organizations
and related groups.” He argued right-to-work laws “do not provide jobs for
workers; they merely prevent workers from building strong, stable unions” (Higgins,
2001).
State Representative Win Moses addressing a town hall meeting on the "Right to Work" legislation.
Under U.S.
labor law, workers already have specific rights. A worker does not have to join
a union or pay costs of a union's political, legislative, social or charitable
activities. A worker can refuse to join a union and still work for a company
where a union exists. The worker only has to pay the cost of the collective
bargaining and other activities which provide direct support to all workers.
This is like any association designed to benefit all members. For example,
homeowners are forced to pay the costs of a homeowners association even if they
do not want the benefits from the activities the association carries out. A
homeowners association can put a lien on a residents home if the dues are not
paid. The RTW law would allow individuals to work at a job with all the
benefits of a collective bargaining agreement without having to contribute to
the cost of those benefits. In the context of a homeowner association this
would be like allowing the homeowner to use the association pool, clubhouse,
parks, security service, etc. without paying their fair share. No one can be
forced to move into a neighborhood with an association; but, if they move in,
knowing there is an association with benefits and a cost, they should pay their
fair share. Likewise, a worker who chooses to work at a job covered by a
collective bargaining agreement which assures certain rights for the workers
should expect to pay a fair share of the costs of obtaining and maintaining
those rights.
RTW laws are really government interference with the
rights of workers and employers to enter into a contract. RTW laws allow a
person who benefits by the contract to avoid paying the costs of obtaining the
benefits gained by the contract. Clearly this approach weakens the worker side
of the contractual bargain to the benefit of the employer. In the absence of
organized labor there would be no contract between the employer and the worker.
Indiana is an
employment at will state, an employer does not need a reason to fire an
employee. An individual employee has minimal bargaining position to obtain
higher wages, safe work conditions or benefits such as health insurance. These
are among the unfair treatment which led to workers becoming organized in unions; to allow negotiations
for fair wages, benefits and safe work conditions.
The result of passage of RTW laws in some states was the
creation of two competing labor climates within the United States, one
(primarily in the Northeast, the Midwest, and on the West Coast) permitted
“fair share” representation clauses in contracts and thus encouraged stable
unions, higher wages, and better
benefits for workers, the other (largely in the South and the Great Plains) outlawed “fair share” agreements through RTW
legislation and inhibited the growth of unions
and their positive effects for workers.
Two independent studies, one by the Indiana University
Division of Labor Studies in January, 2006 and a March 2011 report from the
Higgins Labor Studies Program from
the University of Notre Dame researched the facts related to RTW legislation.
Each of these studies document there is no support for the claim that RTW
legislation helps economic development; and, there is clear documentation that workers
in states with RTW laws make less income and receive less benefits. Further,
review of their research demonstrates
RTW legislation is actually harmful to the overall economy of a state and would
be harmful for Indiana.
The Indiana and Notre Dame research refutes the claims
that RTW legislation attracts businesses to a state. Further, The Work Environment
Index (WEI), constructed by the
Political Economy Research Institute
(PERI) at the University
of Massachusetts, ranked
states in terms of working conditions.
They found states with good working conditions
(Including wages, benefits, safe working conditions,
and good community resources) provide an attractive economic climate for
business; not RTW laws.
The Indiana University study concluded adoption of a RTW law
would be a fundamental step backward for Indiana
and described RTW as nothing more than anti-union strategy disguised as
economic development legislation. The study asserts Indiana and other states cannot win by
joining the race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions.
Mayor Tom Henry addresses the crowd at the Fort Wayne "Right to Work" Town Hall
‘Right-to-work’
laws are an attempt to limit the capacity of unions
to negotiate and even to survive. These laws threaten family values by lowering
family incomes and reducing other benefits such as medical insurance. These
results of RTW laws are in clear conflict with faith based teaching on the
dignity of workers and have a negative impact on family values. As the U.S. Catholics
Bishops wrote in Economic Justice for All, “No one may deny the right to
organize without attacking human dignity itself” (U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1986). The Wage Penalty of "Right-to-Work"
Laws by Lawrence Mishel, found that the mean effect
of working in a right -to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages
for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%.
True economic development is the process of increasing
opportunities and living standards for all residents of an area. The claimed economic growth to be accomplished by the
advocates of RTW does not address how ‘growth’ is distributed. The facts
comparing wages in RTW to non-RTW demonstrate worker wages and benefits are
lower in the RTW states. Real economic development is not compatible with
falling wages and benefits for workers. Our present economic downturn is
evidence of what happens when income
disparity grows with workers suffering reduced incomes while prices continue to
rise. Our working class drives our economy. The presence of unions raised wages for all workers, including non-union
jobs and produced a middle and upper-middle class which became the core to our
economy and our tax base. Unfortunately, as the disparity of wealth has grown,
middle and upper middle class workers have lost ground under the fiction of
economic development. Wages have stagnated or dropped. The tax base has also
dropped without any increase upon those at the top thereby putting economic
pressure on governments resulting in reduced benefits for the unemployed and
underemployed (Those making lower pay that what their past experience and
education would have paid and thus below their prior budgeted income.) Passing RTW
legislation would increase this downward trend increasing the financial strain
on our workers and their families.
The facts dictate rejection of RTW laws for Indiana. We have a great
state with tremendous reasons for businesses to locate here. We, and most
importantly our leaders, should sell the positive reasons for businesses to
relocate here. Promoting economic development by RTW legislation is simply
bidding to lower the rights of Indiana
workers to gain employers who clearly do not value their workers. Indiana can do better.
Economic development should occur by us selling the benefits of Indiana and not by
selling out our working families. Call your government representatives and urge
them to not sell out our working families and tell them to vote NO on right to
work legislation.
REFERENCE AND SOURCES OF
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Adams, Roy J."Universal
Joint Regulation: A Moral Imperative," Proceedings of
the 43rd Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations
Research Association, 1990
Ady, Robert. 1997.
“Discussion of a paper on The Effects of State and Local Public
Services on Economic
Development.” New England Economic
Review. March-April, pp.
77-82.
Belman, Dale "Unions, the Quality of Labor Relations and Firm Performance," in Unions and Economic Competitiveness, Lawrence Mishel and Paula
B. Voos, eds., M.E. Sharpe, 1992
Bennett, J.T. 2001. Right To
Work - Prescription for Prosperity and Opportunity.
Washington, D.C.:
Catholic News Service. 2011.
“Wisc. Archbishop: Don’t suspend workers’ rights,”
Catholic Reporter Online. February 18, 2011. http://ncronline.org/news/justice/wiscarchbishop-
don’t-suspend-workers-rights
Catholic Scholars for Worker
Justice. 2011. “Statement in Support of Labor Unions.”
http://www.usccb.org/jphd/economiclife/pdf/economic_justice_for_all.pdfhttp://wwwcat
holicscholarsforworkerjustice.org/2011%20SOS%20for%20Labor%20Unions.pdf
Cowie, Jefferson. 1999. Capital
Moves: RCA’s Seventy-Year Quest for Cheap Labor.
New York: Cornell University Press.
Dixon, Marc. 2007. “Limiting
Labor: Business Political Mobilization and Union Setback
in the States.” Journal of
Policy History 19: 313-44.
Dubofsky, Melvyn. 1994. The
State and Labor in Modern America.
Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Economic Policy Institute. 2011a. Wages and compensation stagnating. The State of
Working America. Washington,
D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Feb. 14, 2011.
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/201
Economic Policy Institute. 2011b. Family income growth in two eras. The
State of
Working America. Washington,
D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Feb. 14, 2011.
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/49
Farber, H. S. 1985. "The
Extent of Unionization in the United States." in Thomas Kochan, ed.,
Challenges and Choices Facing
American Unions Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Flavin, Patrick, Alexander C.
Pacek, and Benjamin Radcliff. 2010. “Labor Unions
and
Life Satisfaction: Evidence
from New Data.” Social Indicators Research 98(3): 435-49.
Gordon, David. 1995. Fat
and Mean: The Corporate Squeeze of Working Americans
and
the Myth of Managerial
"Downsizing." New York: Free Press.
Gould, Elise, and Heidi
Shierholz. 2011. “The Compensation
Penalty of ‘Right-to-Work’
Laws.” Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper. February 17, 2011.
Higgins,
Mgsr. George G. 2001. “Right to Work Legislation Back in the News,” The
Yardstick, July 30.
J.M., B.T. Hirsch, and D.A.
MacPherson. 1999. Wage Differentials Across Labor Markets and Workers:
Lafer, Gordon. 2011. “What’s
Wrong with ‘Right-to-Work’: Chamber’s numbers don’t
add up.” Economic Policy Institute Policy Memorandum #174.
Lichtenstein,
Nelson. 2002. State of the Unions: A Century of American Labor.
Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Mishel, Lawrence. 2001.
“‘Right-to-Work’ Laws and Economic Development in
Oklahoma.” Economic Policy Institute
Briefing Paper. August 2001.
Moore, W. J., and R.J.
Newman. 1985. The Effects of Fright -to-Work Laws: A Review of the Literature.
Moore, W.J., J.A. Dunlevy, and R.J. Newman. 1986. Do Right
-to -Work Laws Matter? Comment.
Moore, W.J. 1998. The Determinants and Effects of Right
-To-Work Laws: A Review of the Recent Literature. Journal of Labor Research
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 449-69.
Michael E. Porter, The
Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free
Press 1990
James Heintz, Jeannette
Wicks-Lim, Robert Pollin, Decent Work in America: The
State by State Work
Environment Index, 2005
Stevans,
Lonnie K. 2009. “The Effect of Endogenous Right-to-Work Laws on Business
and Economic Conditions in the United States: A Multivariate
Approach.” Review of Law
and Economics 5(1): 595-612.
U.S. Catholic Bishops. 1986. Economic Justice for All:
Pastoral Letter on Catholic
Social Teaching and the U.S.
Economy.
http://www.osjspm.org/economic_justice_for_all.aspx
Vedder, Richard, Matthew
Denhart, and Jonathan Robe. 2011. “Right-To-Work and
Indiana’s Economic Future.” Indiana Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
Wessels, W.J. 1981. Economic
Effects of Right to Work Laws. Journal of Labor Research. Vol. 2, No. 3,
Zieger, Robert, and Gilbert
Gall. 2002. American Workers, American Unions:
The
Twentieth Century, 3rd edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jack Morris