What you need to know about the “right to work for less”

There are 22 states which have a so-called “Right-To-Work” law which prohibits agreements between unions and employers which require workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. In these states, workers in a unionized workplace can not be required to become union members nor pay union dues. Yet these workers would get all the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union without having to pay any of the costs to support the union’s operations.

Business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the National Right To Work Committee lobbied to pass these laws which are really intended to maximize business profits by keeping unions weak and workers disorganized. The term “Right-To-Work” is misleading because it really means “right-towork-for-less”.

Unions in “Work-for-Less” states must constantly spend time and resources to educate and convince workers to become union members and pay their fair share of union dues. The vast majority or 80 percent of union workers do become dues paying members, but 20 percent of the workers do not pay dues.

This leads to weaker unions and a smaller unionized workforce. In 18 of these 22 states, less than 8 percent of their workforce are union members.

Weaker unions mean lower wages and benefits, and these 22 states have some of the lowest wages in the nation. In 2009, the average annual income of these states was $38,214 a year.

Four of the 22 Right-To-Work for less states have relatively high rates of unionization. Nevada has 14.9 percent of their workers unionized because of the large gaming industry. Iowa, Alabama, and Nebraska’s union membership range from 9.2 percent to 11.3 percent.

Union Yes states 
In comparison, states which do not have Right-To-Work for less laws have a much larger unionized workforce. New York, Alaska, and Hawaii have over 20 percent of their workers unionized

Stronger unions enable workers to negotiate higher wages and benefits. The average annual income of the free collective bargaining states was $44,685 in 2009. This is $6,471 higher than the average income of $38,214 of the 22 Work-forLess states. The number of people living in poverty was also much lower in the stronger union states — 12.4 percent in 2009 compared to 14 percent for the 22 Work-for-Less states.

The Work-for-Less states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Source of data 
The data on wages for this story comes from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics and Wage Estimates. We used the State Cross-Industry estimates for May 2009 which can be found at http:// www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm.

The data for union membership also comes from the United States Department of Labor. You can find union membership by state for 2009 and 2010 here: http://www.bls.gov/ news.release/union2.t05.htm.

We looked at the average annual wages earned by 787 jobs from occupations such as Accountants and Astronomers to Writers and Zoologists. The data includes managers and executives and covers over 129 million American wage earners. Some of the largest occupational groups were retail sales, cashiers, office clerks, and food workers. Workers in 706 occupations earned more than 2 percent higher wages in Union-Yes states compared to the same occupations in Work-for-Less states. The average of all 706 occupations was $2.54 higher pay per hour or 13 percent more than in Work-for-Less states.

Even managers and executives did better in Union-Yes states. When their workers are paid more, managers also receive pay raises.

We use 2 percent as this is about what a union member would pay in union dues. This does not count the fact that union workers receive much higher benefits in medical, retirement, holidays, and sick leave. Even if a union worker earns less, the value of better benefits would more than offset lower wages.

Eighty-one occupations earned wages that were less than 2 percent or lower than wages in Work-forLess states. They averaged $.70 less an hour or about 2.5 percent less. A large number of these occupations included doctors, dentists, psychiatrists, scientists, engineers, and other specialized occupations which are rarely unionized.

Major occupation groups 
In the 22 major occupational groups, all but one group does far better in Union-Yes states compared to Work-for-Less states. Construction jobs had the highest advantage, earning 28 percent higher wages then in Work-for-Less states. Protective services and legal occupations earned around 20 percent higher wages. 

Farmers and fishermen were the only major occupational group that earned about the same in Union-Yes and Work-for-Less states.

Communities thrive in union-yes states

Higher worker wages and incomes in Union-Yes states result in a higher tax base for local communities. This means local and state governments have more money to build roads, improve their schools, and provide better health and social services to their community.

Lower wages in Work-for-Less states means less tax dollars for government services.

More money in the pockets of lower and middle class creates a much stronger economy, because these people spend most of their money on necessities in the local community. This leads to a growth in small businesses who sell goods and services to workers and their families. As small businesses do well, they create jobs in the local community.

When you put more money in the hands of the rich, there is less benefit to the local economy. The wealthy can only spend so much money on local goods and services. Most of their money leaves the local economy to buy luxury goods produced elsewhere or buy investments in companies which do business in other states or countries around the world