An Employer's Perspective on Right to Work

Michigan is both a proud manufacturing state with many good jobs inside and outside of the auto industry and, at the same time, a state with a very troubled economy. Many suggestions are made to fix Michigan's economy including economic diversification, adjusting tax regulations, more university schooling for our citizens, and even the addition of a right to work law for union/management relations.

The last idea is an extreme one and is full of bad consequences. First of all, a right to work (RTW) law doesn't give anyone more rights nor does it enable more people to work anywhere. It merely makes illegal that contractual clause that management and unions put in their agreements to stipulate that workers at a worksite must each equally pay to support the union. Currently, employers all across the state voluntarily agree in negotiations to mandate workers either be union members or pay a service fee equal to dues. Why do employers agree to this? They agree to this because the majority of employees want that clause. Union dues are like taxes in this case. In exchange for union services, members pay dues and they believe it's only fair if all workers pay the same. I agree.

I don't want part of my workforce taking advantage of another group of workers. I think that if there is to be a union at a worksite, by majority decision and all workers equally receive the benefits of the contract, then all workers should equally support that arrangement. I certainly don't need hard feelings caused by disagreements over union dues producing strife instead of teamwork among my employees.

Likewise, I don't think the state of Michigan needs the strife and fight of a ballot issue over this either. The national RTW organization, a Washington D.C. based legal and lobbying operation wants to put a vote on this issue on our state's ballot next November. We don't need it. My employees are not asking for it, and it will present a poor image of our state if we did engage in a RTW ballot dispute.

A right to work vote in Michigan in 2008 would produce a state at war with itself. Instead of promoting a Michigan where good labor/management relations produce productive, high wage, high skill jobs, such a ballot issue will show potential businesses looking to locate here a Michigan engaged in a bitter fight between unions and employers. The damage will last even longer than the election year. The national news will report yet another political fight in Michigan and give good companies just another reason to locate elsewhere. I'd rather show a state that works together for a common good.

The proponents claim that becoming a right to work state will attract employers and jobs to Michigan. This is false. If employers are actually avoiding Michigan because of a 20% unionized workforce, they will continue to avoid Michigan because of a 16% unionized workforce (assuming one in five members drop out if RTW passes). Michigan's strategy for economic renewal must be based in high skill, high wage jobs, not a constant lowering of wages until our standard of living is near that of Mississippi. Ultimately, many of our state's businesses depend on consumers who earn enough at work to buy our products.
The RTW proponents think other states that have such a RTW labor have better economic growth. But there are many facts that dispute this. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), North Carolina, a right to work state, leads the nation in job loss between June and July 2007. The federal agency reported that North Carolina lost over 20,000 jobs, more than we lost in Michigan. The biggest month-to-month increases found two non-right to work states in the top three states for job creation, with Maryland and New York coming in second and third respectively. The most recent data on RTW finds that states are not better off when considering their level of unemployed workers. Kansas, Nebraska, and Mississippi (all RTW states) are near the top for unemployment levels. It is a manufacturing job loss issue in Michigan and America, not a RTW, legal issue.

Further, these proponent's promises have not been shown to be true when a state changes their labor laws. In July 2007, Mickey Hepner, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Central Oklahoma, stated that he believes effects of the passage of right to work in Oklahoma (in 2001, the most recent state to do so) were "probably rather minimal, plus or minus either way." Hepner went on the say that he thought that right to work laws make less sense as businesses become more globalized. Oklahoma has lost 22,000 of its manufacturing jobs after RTW took effect, as proof of this.

There are social impacts also. For example, in many states right to work laws mean a lower quality of life. The fact of the matter is that those states that have RTW laws DO have a consistently lower quality of life than non-RTW states. RTW states have lower median household incomes, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by about $5,900. But the cuts go deeper than just income; according to the U.S. Census, RTW states consistently have a higher poverty rate, a higher rate of population without healthcare, and even a higher infant mortality rate! RTW states even spend over $2,000 less on each pupil. From pocketbooks to classrooms, the negative effects of RTW laws produce a standard of living that we don't have in Michigan.

Let me sum up. We are better off in marketing our state as a place where management and labor work together for high productivity, instead of showing a state of political fights and labor/management strife. The idea of right to work may sound good, but it hurts teamwork on the shop floor and introduces divisions and arguments among the workforce. The promise of RTW economics has not been realized in North Carolina or Oklahoma, it's no guarantee.

I need skilled workers. I need educated workers. I'd rather have unions in Michigan be part of supplying that than have outsiders from Washington force their divisive agenda onto our ballot.

st/opeiu459aflcio