What does "Right to work" really mean?
It means that unions and management cannot negotiate a union security clause in their collective bargaining agreement. A union security clause states that a worker covered by the agreement must at least pay a fee for the services they receive from the union.

What’s The Real Purpose Of "Right To Work?"
The "right to work" provision was never meant to make sure a person could keep a job. It was designed to weaken and destroy the principle of collective bargaining. It represents a state-sanctioned policy of worker suppression. Passed as political payback when labor’s enemies took over the Congress in 1947, it was described by one supporter as recognizing and dealing "with the dangerous expansion of unionism…"

Supporters claim that "right to work" is good for the state’s economic development and that we should tout it as an attraction to business. In fact, "right to work" is the opposite of cooperative economic policy. Data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that annual pay for workers in "right to work" states ranks consistently below the national average. Sound economic development and job creation strategies should be based on such things as public investment in infrastructure and education that will attract stable businesses that pay decent wages and treat their workforce with dignity and fairness.

It's Really A 'Right To Work For Less'
It's no coincidence that some employer groups, big business and ultraconservative lawmakers back “right to work” laws because such laws weaken unions and in turn depress wages. Studies show that workers in “Right to Work” states earn significantly less, while workers in non-“right to work” states earn significantly more. A primary reason is that workers with a union contract earn higher pay—weakening unions lowers average pay. Workers of color and women workers who are union members make significantly higher wages.

The average worker in Idaho earns about $5,655 less a year than workers in other states (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept of Commerce 2003)  

Hispanic union members earn 45 percent ($180) more a week than nonunion Hispanic workers. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)

African Americans earn 30 percent ($140) more a week if they are union members. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002) 

Union women earn 30 percent more ($149) a week than nonunion women. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002) 

During the past five years the average loss in Idaho per capita income has been $5,655 per year. So, in the 18 years since "Right to Work' passed in Idaho, each person has earned $101,790 less than the national average. Each person has lost more than 4 years of income based on Idaho average income of $25,057 in 2002

Right to Work Facts
Workers in Right to Work states earn on average $3,500 - $5,300 a year less than workers in free bargaining states.

Only one Right to Work state out of 22 has per capita personal income above the national average.

Of the 15 states with the highest average hourly earnings for manufacturing workers 14 or 93% are free bargaining states.

Workers with health care coverage in free states is 23% higher than Right to Work states.

Unemployment benefits are 20% more in free bargaining states.

Workers compensation benefits for injured workers in Right to Work states are 20% less than free states.

Idaho ranks 46th in earnings in the US.

The Right to Work law does not create jobs or stimulate the economy.

The rate of workplace death is 51% higher in Right to Work states.

Right to Work states spend $1,699 less on elementary and secondary students than free bargaining states.

Persons living below the poverty level in Idaho have increased 33% from 1990 to 1998.

Idaho teachers salaries are 40th in the nation for elementary and secondary education.

California is the only state that has higher State Income Tax.

Idaho dropped from the 5th most livable state in 1991 to 20th in 2003

Impact on Worker Environment
In addition to the economic impacts of Right to Work, it has spawned an anti-worker environment in Idaho. This has resulted in the following rules taken out of the Idaho Department of Labor Wage and Hour Section. Idaho Law Does Not Require:
a.  Vacation, holiday, severance, or sick pay
b.  A discharge notice or reason for discharge
c.  Rest periods, breaks, lunch breaks, holidays off, or vacations
d.  Premium pay for weekends or holidays worked
e.  Pay raises or fringe benefits
f.  A limit on the number of hours an employee can work per day or week for those 16 years of 
    age or older

It's Not Just About Unions, But Communities Too|
“Right to work” laws reach far beyond wages. Quality-of-life issues such as health care, education, worker safety and poverty suffer greatly in “right to work” states.  

“Right to work” states 21 percent more people are without health insurance compared with those in free-bargaining states. Source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, (Morgan Quinto Press) 

“Right to work” states spend $1,699 less per elementary and secondary pupil than other states. (Source: Education Vital Signs, 2000–2001 school year) 

The infant mortality rate in “right to work” states is 17 percent higher than in other states, and the poverty rate is 12.5 percent compared with 10.2 percent in other states. (Source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, Morgan Quinto Press; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002) 

The rate of workplace death is 51 percent higher in “right to work” states. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001; AFL-CIO, “Death on the Job,” April 2002)  

What Happens If Idaho Repeals "Right To Work?"
Workplaces that are not unionized (over 85% of all workers) would not be affected.

Idaho employers and unions could negotiate union security clauses. Just like other items discussed at the bargaining table, the union security clause would become part of the give and take of negotiations. If the members ratify (by a majority vote) a contract that does not contain the union security clause, even in a free bargaining state, non-members would not have to join the union or pay for union representation in that workplace.

If the employer and the union (by a majority vote of the members) agree to a contract that includes a union security clause, employees would be required to at least pay a fee for the services they receive.

If workers object to dues money being used for non-collective bargaining activity, they may request and receive a rebate for that portion of their dues or fee that goes for non-collective bargaining purposes. If they have religious objections to paying dues or joining unions, they may make contributions to charities instead.

'Right to Work' States Are Really Restricted Rights States 
It's not a right to a job. Right to work” has nothing to do with a right to a job or employment. The deceptively named “right to work” laws ban workers—who by a majority vote decided to form a union in their workplace—and employers from negotiating union security clauses. By law, unions must represent all workers—members and nonmembers—in contract negotiations and other workplace issues. A union security clause does not force workers to join a union but simply means they must pay a fair share for the economic benefits they receive because of union representation—such as health insurance, pensions and wages that are on average better than those for nonunion workers.

A “right to work” law would allow nonmember workers to get all the benefits of union membership and pay nothing, while forcing unions and their members to foot the bill for those not willing to pay their share. The result is weaker unions with inadequate re­sources to represent members.

In the 28 non-“right to work" states, federal law protects those workers who do not want to join the union. Workers in those states are required to pay only a fair share to cover the costs of their union representation, but not the cost of a union's political, legislative, social or charitable activities.

Conclusion
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why anti-worker business groups love "work for less" and that's because it means lower wages and ineffective or nonexistent state labor laws to protect working Americans. But keep in mind that when wages fall, state income and sales tax revenues fall. And that means that a state will have far less funding available to finance education, transportation, and other programs that are vital to attracting new industries and businesses.

Employment, unemployment, job growth and the future of the national and state economies will continue to be impacted by many factors including external forces beyond the states' control. All too often states that are beset by economic problems are among the most easily enticed by the illusory, quick fix promise of "work for less". But in reality, it's the worst kind of public policy gimmickry that will only lead to erosion of workers' rights and wages while causing deep divisions within the community.

In these times of economic transition and tough choices, state and local governments that work in partnerships with their business, labor, education and civic constituencies to devise consensus public policies to deal with these issues will continue to be among those that are the most successful in stimulating economic development and jobs. On the other hand, those that take the low road--pursuing the gimmick, the quick fix and the simple solution will lag behind, victimized by their own lack of creativity and vision.

 

Letters  To The Editor On "Right To Work For Less"

	Editorials On  "Right To Work For Less"

If you would like more information, sign a 
petition, or to volunteer or donate, please click on: 

Initiative Coordinators

or contact:
Idaho Citizens to Repeal Right To Work
P.O. Box 698
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816
(208) 818-1076

FastCounter by bCentral