Both Sides Exaggerate Effects of “Right-to-Work”

by Barry Hirsch,

Right-to-work proponents contend that mandatory dues payment is coercive, requiring workers to support an organization they may not want. I have little sympathy with this view. We are often required to support collective action by private organizations (e.g., condo associations) and governments. We pay taxes to governments to finance activities we may not support, authorized by leaders for whom we did not vote.

Unions are no less democratic: coverage exists where a majority of workers chose to be represented, members vote for their leaders and contracts require majority approval. Workers are free to move to another job.

Proponents and opponents agree that right-to-work laws weaken unions and deny them funds, but these arguments are exaggerated. Right-to-work does not alter collective bargaining rights. In right-to-work states, covered workers who do not join the union have the same rights, pay and benefits as do members. Most covered workers choose to be members and pay dues, even though it is not mandatory.

Although limited, “free-riding” by covered nonmembers reduces union revenues at a time when unions are financially squeezed because of declining private sector membership and the high costs of organizing and political expenditures. Squeezing union revenues is a fundamental reason for Republican politicians’ support of right-to-work laws.

While unions understandably oppose right-to-work, there could be a small upside. Even in workplaces with strong support for union representation, some workers may strongly oppose a union workplace. The choice not to be a member and not to pay full dues provides not only the option to free ride, but also an escape valve for this minority. Having this option places pressure on unions to be responsive to workers so as to limit the number of nonmembers.

While proponents and opponents exaggerate the impacts of right-to-work, one argument for it appears to have salience. Companies choosing where to locate establishments often regard the presence of right-to-work as an indicator of a favorable business climate. I’m not convinced right-to-work is a good indicator, or that companies that place heavy weight on right-to-work need be companies that states should want to attract. The economic and political environments of states are not fixed. I am skeptical that right-to-work provides a reliable signal of a state’s long-run future.

Right-to-work has played little role in the long-run decline of private sector unionization. Adoption of right-to-work laws will have little impact on states’ economic future.

More From The New York Times: