Controversial and deeply partisan, the right to work has been a growing trend in the United States and like most policies, has its pros and cons. Concisely, right to work laws disallow agreements between an employer and labor unions to dictate that employees must pay for membership to the union in order to become and stay employed (“Some facts about,” n.d.). In 1944, both Arkansas and Florida paved the way for other states to allow their citizens to bypass labor unions without limiting their chance to being excluded in job opportunities. Today, 28 states have passed a right to work law, many of them coming from the southern and midwestern parts of the country (Kasperkevic 2017). Said above, these laws have both their pros and cons, and some of the great examples of this are Michigan and Indiana.
As of recently, it’s been documented in many cases that the power of the unions is declining and the rise in right to work laws are rising rapidly. This issue has been extremely partisan, and many don’t realize how much of an impact it played in the 2016 Presidential Election. First off, Republicans favor these right to work laws because it restricts regulation, which makes the environment more business friendly and pro-growth. On the other hand, democrats favor the labor union because they believe in protection of the worker through more regulation and requirements. While Republicans have been gradually shifting power from the unions to the workers in the upper Midwest, Democrats have, for the most part, stuck with the labor unions (Kasperkevic, 2017). These factors greatly determined the recent election because these are the states that ended up making the difference. While it appears rather unclear what people exactly want, as President Trump didn’t run on a very Republican-esque agenda, it is obvious that the people in this geographical area are unhappy, and that’s why this topic matters so much.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Unions vs. Right to Work".
Right to work laws have many pros and cons to them and it all comes down to which option gives the best payoff to the maximum amount of people. For comparison, consider the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. This healthcare law is all about payoffs and give and takes. Moreover, polls indicate that a huge consensus of people don’t like but love the “goodies” the ACA provides, but absolutely despise the individual mandate. The individual mandate is basically just a payment citizens need to make to the healthcare law to fund all the benefits that come with it. Unions are structured like this, as workers are expected to pay a sum, or most recently a percentage, of money, and this funds all of the benefits that come with unions. Unions are meant to protect the worker, but many workers feel betrayed (like my grandpa and uncle who work in a factory) because they feel like unions have been trying to milk more and more money out of workers. Thus, right to work laws can benefit and also hurt a set number of people, but it really comes down to a payoff matrix of who is benefitted the most.
Right to work laws are viewed as positives when it comes to constitutionality and economic growth. First off, right to work gives citizens more rights to choose who they want to give their money to. Many critics of the labor unions accuse them of taxation without representation, which leads to an abuse of power and unfair allocation of funds (“Currently 23 out of 50,” n.d.). Also, right to work states have been seen to “employ a greater percentage of workers….which was 1.4 percentage points higher than the average non-right-to-work state” (“Currently 23 out of 50,” n.d.). Additionally, a Center of the American Experiment showed that Minnesota would have been in one of the best economic conditions out of any states if it adopted right to work laws, which is did not (“Currently out of 50,” n.d.). However, others point to the benefits of having unions as a deterrent for getting rid of them.
Those who are against right to work point to the fact that the average wage is “$5538 a year less than workers in states without these laws” (“Currently 23 out of 50,” n.d.). Additionally, workplace safety is much more safe in union states than right to work states. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “[t]he rate of workplace deaths is 49 percent higher in states with Right-to-Work laws” (“Some facts about,” n.d.). Also, while unions don’t cover as many people as right to work laws, they make sure their members are well taken care of. For example, poverty rates are almost 3 percent lower in union states than right to work states; also, healthcare coverage is much higher in union states than in right to work states (“Some facts about,” n.d.).
28 states have right to work laws, and more will probably follow as unions are declining. Two states that have right to work laws are Michigan and Indiana, and are in the process of transitioning right now. Obviously, the union rate drops as right to work laws are implemented, but as of right now there hasn’t been much economic growth (Bauer, 2015). Some economists are saying that it’s too early to measure economic growth and that it should be reassessed in 2020. However, observers have said that businesses who wouldn’t consider states without right to work laws are now considering these two states. I live in Michigan, and from what I can personally tell, there is not much improvement here as people probably hoped. Because of this, I think many people have grown a bit angry here and are anxious for change in how the entire job process works.
As time passes, the answer to whether right to work states should be part of the future will reveal itself and the U.S. will hopefully have a more focused objective as to how to stimulate job growth. The big argument between the right to work states and the unions is basically a question of a more centralized job process or a decentralized job process. Right now, I think that the unions are more efficient than right to work laws because coverage does not always mean quality treatment. So while more people are covered with right to work laws, less people may have healthcare or safe working conditions because there isn’t really any organization defending these workers. Hence, there are clearly two sides of the coin when it comes to right to work laws, and in the end it should fall to the people to decide whether they want more freedom or more security.
