|
Right to Work for Less
On August 12, in Frank Beckmann's Detroit News column, he touted the benefits of right-to-work states vs "forced unionism states like Michigan." In the column he states that we need to put right-to-work legislation on the table in Michigan to help turn around the economic crisis we are facing.
Well Frank, we disagree. Right-to-work is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. And that’s exactly what it has accomplished in the states that have these laws. Worst of all, it has translated into lower wages and benefits, a diminished standard of living and substandard legal protections for workers in right-to-work states.
Please send a letter to the editor to the Detroit News letting them know the benefits of staying a union state. Please make your letter more effective by adding some of the bulleted points listed below or in the "Tell me more" section.
- The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states
- 21 percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states compared to free-bargaining states
- Right to work states have a poverty rate of 12.5 percent, compared with 10.2 percent in other states
- Right to work makes it harder for unionized employers to compete for business
- Right to work brings government interference to private enterprise
| Sample Letter for Campaign |
Subject: Letter to the editor
Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,
I disagree with Mr. Beckmann's article of August 12th. Right-to-work laws are a bad deal for workers because they restrict workers' rights to union representation and lower the wages of all workers. With no unions to represent them, workers cannot bargain for better wages and benefits.
Right-to-work laws are bad for the states that pass them and bad for the economy. Because union membership means higher
wages, consumers have more to spend.
That's good for local companies, and good for Michigan's economy.
Sincerely,
|
Campaign Launched:
August 12, 2005
|
Right to Work Hurts Everyone
Workers in states with right to work laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states—lower wages, higher poverty and infant mortality rates, less access to the health care they need and poorer education for their children.
Lower Wages
The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167). Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).
Fewer People with Health Care
21 percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states compared to free-bargaining states.
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
Right to work states have a poverty rate of 12.5 percent, compared with 10.2 percent in other states. Moreover, the infant mortality rate is 16 percent higher in right to work states.
Lower Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Workers Injured on the Job
Maximum weekly worker compensation benefits are $30 higher in free states ($609 versus $579 in right to work states.
More Workplace Deaths and Injuries
According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.
Unionized employers have a lot to gain by standing up for workers’ rights and opposing right to work laws:
Right to work makes it harder for unionized employers to compete for business. Many unions retain their membership in right to work states, although adding new bargaining units is made more difficult. This means that while unionized employers stay unionized, nonunion firms can remain unorganized and gain an even greater competitive advantage based on low-wage, no-benefit jobs.
That’s especially true in construction. Unionized construction companies may have the most to gain from opposing right to work and other attacks on union membership. Unionized construction companies compete largely on the basis of better quality work because they provide more training, have fewer injuries on the job and are more productive. All these competitive advantages are threatened when low-road companies can drive down wages because of anti-union legislation.
Right to work reduces consumer spending. Because union membership means higher wages, higher unionization within a community means consumers have more to spend. That’s good for local companies, especially those in retail sales and services.
Right to work brings government interference to private enterprise. A right to work law takes union security off the bargaining table. In effect, government limits the right of employers to set the terms and conditions of employment by telling companies and their workers what they can and can’t bargain over. Labor and management should have the freedom to agree upon the conditions of work—without the government dictating to them.
|
