“right-to-work” laws
DESCRIPTION
“Right-to-Work” Laws. What does Right To Work Mean???. What is “ Right-to-Work? ”. The 1947 Taft-Hartley of the National Labor Relations Act created a loophole (section 14b) in which states can make union-security clauses illegal in collective bargaining agreements - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
““Right-to-Work”Right-to-Work”LawsLaws
What does Right To Work Mean???What does Right To Work Mean???
What is What is ““Right-to-Work?Right-to-Work?”” The 1947 Taft-Hartley of the National Labor Relations Act The 1947 Taft-Hartley of the National Labor Relations Act
created a loophole (section 14b) in which states can make union-created a loophole (section 14b) in which states can make union-security clauses illegal in collective bargaining agreementssecurity clauses illegal in collective bargaining agreements
Under a RTW law, employees cannot be required to pay union Under a RTW law, employees cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employmentdues as a condition of employment
Last state to pass RTW was Oklahoma in 2001Last state to pass RTW was Oklahoma in 2001
Most states passed RTW during 1947-1959 periodMost states passed RTW during 1947-1959 period
Paying Fair Share in Non-RTW StatesPaying Fair Share in Non-RTW States Union security clause in non-RTW statesUnion security clause in non-RTW states
Fair shareFair share Workers in Union positions, positions which receive all of Workers in Union positions, positions which receive all of
the wages and benefits of union representation, must pay the wages and benefits of union representation, must pay the costs of that representationthe costs of that representation
RTW states create are RTW states create are criticizedcriticized as being as being “Right-to-“Right-to-Freeload”Freeload” Workers get all the same wages and benefitsWorkers get all the same wages and benefits Union must represent them at own expenseUnion must represent them at own expense
Right-to-Work Laws are a from the PastRight-to-Work Laws are a from the Past
The RTW campaign began in 1947The RTW campaign began in 1947
To date, more than 60 years later, less than To date, more than 60 years later, less than half of our states (22) have adopted a RTW half of our states (22) have adopted a RTW lawlaw
Economic impacts of RTW
Economic Development MythsEconomic Development Myths RTW is not among the most important factors related to RTW is not among the most important factors related to
business decisions on facility locationbusiness decisions on facility location
Incentive packages offered by states are the most important Incentive packages offered by states are the most important factor:factor: tax rates; education of workforce; cheap energy; tax rates; education of workforce; cheap energy;
abundant labor supply; cheap land; transportation; abundant labor supply; cheap land; transportation; climateclimate
Good growth vs bad growth is the real issueGood growth vs bad growth is the real issue
RTW lowers per capita incomes RTW lowers per capita incomes
and the standard of livingand the standard of living
Ex. Oklahoma “Job Creation” with Ex. Oklahoma “Job Creation” with RTWRTW
To attract new businesses in the 1990s, began giving To attract new businesses in the 1990s, began giving 5% cash back on payrolls for creating new jobs5% cash back on payrolls for creating new jobs No requirement on how money is spentNo requirement on how money is spent
Now gives 10% cash back on payrolls of jobs with Now gives 10% cash back on payrolls of jobs with annual salaries or $94,000 or moreannual salaries or $94,000 or more No requirement on how money is spentNo requirement on how money is spent
RTW has nothing to do with this situationRTW has nothing to do with this situation
Company LocationCompany Location In 2010, In 2010, Area DevelopmentArea Development magazine ranked the magazine ranked the
top 10 states for site selection based on survey of top 10 states for site selection based on survey of site selection industry consultantssite selection industry consultants Indiana ranked number 6 out of 10Indiana ranked number 6 out of 10
The survey revealed 8 main criteria used by The survey revealed 8 main criteria used by consultants to determine site location selectionconsultants to determine site location selection None of the 8 criteria mention RTW None of the 8 criteria mention RTW
Company LocationCompany LocationIn 2010, In 2010, Chief ExecutiveChief Executive magazine polled magazine polled 600600 U.S. CEOs about site U.S. CEOs about site selection criteria:selection criteria:
Criteria were grouped and rated as follows:Criteria were grouped and rated as follows: Tax and regulation; workforce quality; living environmentTax and regulation; workforce quality; living environment
Under "workforce quality" the 5 most important items were:Under "workforce quality" the 5 most important items were: Employee work ethic; general education level of workforce; Employee work ethic; general education level of workforce;
competitiveness of wage rates; employees cooperative competitiveness of wage rates; employees cooperative relationship with management; availability of labor with relationship with management; availability of labor with specialized skillsspecialized skills
RTW was not a factor in site location selectionRTW was not a factor in site location selection Education of workforce is more important factor in site selection Education of workforce is more important factor in site selection
““Actual Buying Power”Actual Buying Power” Actual buying power is commonly measured as BPIActual buying power is commonly measured as BPI
6 of the top 10 metro areas with the highest BPI in the 6 of the top 10 metro areas with the highest BPI in the U.S. are in non-RTW work states (2009 data)U.S. are in non-RTW work states (2009 data)
29 of the top 50 metro areas with the highest BPI are in 29 of the top 50 metro areas with the highest BPI are in non-RTW states (2009 data)non-RTW states (2009 data)
Workers in RTW states do not enjoy greater buying Workers in RTW states do not enjoy greater buying power than workers in non-RTW statespower than workers in non-RTW states
CompetitionCompetition Off-shoring of jobs from the U.S. mainlandOff-shoring of jobs from the U.S. mainland
Overwhelming majority of U.S. jobs off-shored are non-union Overwhelming majority of U.S. jobs off-shored are non-union jobsjobs
Not a choice between union wages and non-wagesNot a choice between union wages and non-wages Choice between living wages and third world wagesChoice between living wages and third world wages Never seem to compete on executive’s wagesNever seem to compete on executive’s wages
If entire U.S. workforce made the federal min. wage of If entire U.S. workforce made the federal min. wage of $7.25 per hr - still cannot compete with workers in third $7.25 per hr - still cannot compete with workers in third world nationsworld nations The 2010 average wage for a Mexican worker was The 2010 average wage for a Mexican worker was
approximately $2.00 per hr with no benefitsapproximately $2.00 per hr with no benefits
““Falling Tide” Effect for All WorkersFalling Tide” Effect for All Workers Reverse of “Rising Tide" effect on wages and benefitsReverse of “Rising Tide" effect on wages and benefits
Unions lose bargaining strengthUnions lose bargaining strength Resulting drop in wages and benefit levels lowers wages and benefits Resulting drop in wages and benefit levels lowers wages and benefits
throughout the entire communitythroughout the entire community
This happens in the reverse manner that the "rising This happens in the reverse manner that the "rising tide" effect raises wages and benefit levels throughout tide" effect raises wages and benefit levels throughout an entire communityan entire community
Right-to-work directly impacts floor and ceiling wages Right-to-work directly impacts floor and ceiling wages in every community within the statein every community within the state Impacts every worker, not just union workersImpacts every worker, not just union workers
Economic Development MythsWorkers Lose Wages Under Right to WorkWorkers Lose Wages Under Right to Work
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Ave
rage
Weekly
Wage
All Workers Women Workers Black/AfricanAmericanWorkers
Hispanic/LatinoWorkers
Asian Workers
Union States
RTW States
Economic Development MythsWorkers Lose Wages in Right to Work StatesWorkers Lose Wages in Right to Work States
$560
$580
$600
$620
$640
$660
$680
$700
$720
$740
Average Weekly Wage
Union Shop States RTW States Indiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Families Lose Income in Right to Work StatesFamilies Lose Income in Right to Work States
•Source: U.S. Census BureauSource: U.S. Census Bureau
$44,000
$46,000
$48,000
$50,000
$52,000
$54,000
$56,000
$58,000
Median Family Income
Union Shop States RTW States Indiana
What Workers Lose Under Right to Work What Workers Lose Under Right to Work
16.8%
17.3%
15.0%
15.5%
16.0%
16.5%
17.0%
17.5%
18.0%
Weekly Wage Cut Annual Family Income Loss
•Estimates based on
Economic Activity is Lower in Right to Work StatesEconomic Activity is Lower in Right to Work States
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Average Gross State Product (in
billions)
Union Shop States RTW States Indiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Race to the BottomRace to the Bottom
We are a consumer-based societyWe are a consumer-based society For our economic engine to run, workers For our economic engine to run, workers
need disposable income to spendneed disposable income to spend Lowering wages in order to compete at a Lowering wages in order to compete at a
level we can never attain is economic level we can never attain is economic suicide suicide
““Forced Unionism” ArgumentForced Unionism” Argument
Workers are ‘forced” to join a union to keep Workers are ‘forced” to join a union to keep their jobtheir job
Workers are “forced” to pay union dues for Workers are “forced” to pay union dues for union political activities with which they do union political activities with which they do not agreenot agree
Facts About “Forced Unionism”Facts About “Forced Unionism”
Federal law has protected the rights of Federal law has protected the rights of workers from “forced unionism” for decadesworkers from “forced unionism” for decades
Ultimately, workers are free to choose where Ultimately, workers are free to choose where to workto work
The “Forced Unionism”The “Forced Unionism” Fact #1: Workers cannot be forced” to join a UnionFact #1: Workers cannot be forced” to join a Union
1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations ActRelations Act Right of workers to refrain from joining a union was Right of workers to refrain from joining a union was
expressly added to Section 7expressly added to Section 7
Affirmed by the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case NLRB v. Affirmed by the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case NLRB v. General Motors Corp. General Motors Corp. Workers cannot be forced to belong to a unionWorkers cannot be forced to belong to a union
*373 U.S. 734 (1963)
The “Forced Unionism”The “Forced Unionism”
Fact #2: Workers cannot be required to pay for Fact #2: Workers cannot be required to pay for Union political activities with which they do not Union political activities with which they do not agreeagree
Decided by the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Decided by the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers v. BeckCommunications Workers v. Beck Workers cannot be forced to pay union dues for Workers cannot be forced to pay union dues for
political activitiespolitical activities
*487 U.S. 735 (1988)
Worker ChoiceWorker Choice 93% of the private sector is non-union93% of the private sector is non-union Only 7% of the U.S. private sector workforce is unionizedOnly 7% of the U.S. private sector workforce is unionized
Workers who choose not to pay their fair share of union dues for Workers who choose not to pay their fair share of union dues for the good wages, benefits, and representation services they receive the good wages, benefits, and representation services they receive may simply choose to work elsewheremay simply choose to work elsewhere
Non-union companies are continually hiringNon-union companies are continually hiring Wal-MartWal-Mart McDonald'sMcDonald's
Workers are not bound to work in a union job in which they feel Workers are not bound to work in a union job in which they feel uncomfortableuncomfortable Workers may terminate the employment relationship at any Workers may terminate the employment relationship at any
timetime Workers are free to move to an Workers are free to move to an existing RTW stateexisting RTW state
““Forced Representation”Forced Representation” Unions in RTW states are required, by force of Unions in RTW states are required, by force of
law, to represent non-contributors and non-law, to represent non-contributors and non-membersmembers
Only time in U.S. history that an organization Only time in U.S. history that an organization has been "forced" to represent non-members has been "forced" to represent non-members and non-contributors and bear the costs of that and non-contributors and bear the costs of that representationrepresentation
Federal or state government have never required Federal or state government have never required a U.S. business to perform a similar taska U.S. business to perform a similar task
QUESTIONS???QUESTIONS???