|
|
Location: Blogs Dan's Blog |
 |
| Posted by: Dan McGrath |
1/26/2012 |
Legislature considering whether to put Right-to-Work issue on the ballot in 2012
Minneapolis, MN - Minnesota Free Market Institute at Center of the American Experiment today released a new study, "Minnesota Right-to-Work: How the Freedom of Workers in the Workplace Enhances Prosperity," by Dr. Richard Vedder, Matthew Denhart, and Jonathan Robe.
The study found that a typical Minnesota resident would have a higher income and standard of living if the state had a Right-to-Work provision that allowed workers the freedom to join, or not to join, a labor union. Twenty-two states, including neighbors North and South Dakota and Iowa, currently have similar measures and Minnesota legislators are considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would be placed on this November's general election ballot.
"Minnesotans would have a higher standard of living and greater job opportunities if the state had adopted a right-to-work law 30 years ago," said Dr. Richard Vedder, chief author of the study. "Minnesota's future prosperity would be enhanced if the state allows employees to decide whether or not to join a labor union."
The study estimates that annual personal income per capita, on average, would have been $2,360 to $3,072 higher in 2008 if Minnesota had adopted Right-to-Work in 1977. On a per household basis, income would have been somewhere in the range of $5,960 to $7,740 higher if such a provision had been in place. Instead of being 14th in the nation in per capita income in 2008, the state almost certainly would have been in the top 10.
"This study provides useful information to voters and legislators as they consider this contentious issue," said Kim Crockett, COO and General Counsel at Center of the American Experiment. "Minnesota should take all possible steps to strengthen our economy. While workplace freedom would be a cultural shift, it would also be a key factor in unleashing Minnesota's talent and attracting investment to our state."
This finding adds to economic evidence connecting Right-to-Work laws with economic growth, which suggests that passing Right-to-Work in Minnesota will help the state's economy grow stronger and more competitive. Importantly, the cost to the state government would be minimal as enacting Right-to-Work requires no expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
"Minnesota's economy has experienced a slowdown largely attributable to the national and global recession and slow recovery," said Peter Nelson, Director of Public Policy at the Center of the American Experiment. "We're interested in solutions to help Minnesota regain economic strength. This study looks into whether providing workers the freedom to join or not join a union would translate into greater prosperity - not just for employers - but for employees, as well. We found that Minnesota has missed growth opportunities that would have benefited both employees and employers. This study clearly demonstrates that Minnesota would benefit from employee workplace freedom."
While the study does not focus on the state budget, it does not sidestep how Right-to-Work can help improve the state's balance sheet by containing public employee labor costs. Public unions are especially troubling in states without Right-to-Work, because they represent an agreement between two monopoly providers: state governments have a monopoly over the provision of public goods within a state, and unions (in absence of Right-to-Work) hold a monopoly over employment services. This can lead to above-market compensation levels for employees and sharply higher costs of providing public services.
The report concludes that the United States operates largely under Depression-era labor laws that are increasingly out of touch with the realities of a global labor market. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 provided states an opportunity to reduce some of the adverse effects of these laws by passing "Right-to-Work" measures that give workers the right to decide whether they wish to join a union or pay union dues. Minnesota did not take advantage of that opportunity and has paid a high economic price for not doing so.
Right-to-Work has been proven to attract productive resources (both capital and labor) to a state. Following a decade of relatively slower economic growth, it may well be time for Minnesota to become the 23rdstate to pass Right-to-Work.
Read the study: "Minnesota Right-to-Work: How the Freedom of Workers in the Workplace Enhances Prosperity"
Take Action: Contact your legislators and tell them to support the Right to Work Amendment. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (8)
Add Comment
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Devera Smith on
1/26/2012 |
| This seems to be a "no brainer" to me. MN needs right to work to get back on track and be the great state it always could be. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Thomas J. on
1/30/2012 |
| What about the "Keep Government Out of My Life" banner the 'Tradiotional Value' sect is supposed to be carrying? This seems to be stretching pretty far from that principle. There is a democratic process (lacking in most other corporate work places) available toprivate company union members of to stop being represented by a union, and that is a simple majority vote to stop representation. By having Republican congressmen and women bringing these amendments forward to let the 80% of non union workers vote on a right to work bill that affects a small minority of todays workers is plain and simply a union busting bill backed by corporations that are looking at nothing but their own bank accounts. The reports author fails to mention that no right to work state has a median income higher than the national average, or that right to work states hold the highest worker fatality rates in the country (mainly from the lack of or eroding of safety rules and safe work practices negotiated between locals and the companies) and to top it off the majority of "right-to-work" states are proud holders of the lowest education standards and tests scores in the entire country. These education standards are directly related to the lower wages of the majority middle class workers, hence lower funds available to fund education. The no brainer seems to be that this is a bill introduced by a far right Republican in order to effect the private lives of private citizens in order to appease their big money, conservative backers. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By dan.mcgrath on
1/30/2012 |
| The way union elections are structured, they can be created by a minority of workers, and forced on a majority who don't want to be part of it. Even non-members are forced to pay the unions. This is flat out wrong. This kind of union intrusion is enabled by big government and must be scaled back to a purely voluntary association. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Thomas J. on
1/30/2012 |
Dan.mcgrath, Your statement is completely false and a reason why there should be a "fact check" button right next to the spell check button when people post on the internet. A union vote is the purest form of democracy in this country. There is no electoral college or representatives voting for someone, it is a simple 51% majority rule vote. The nonsense you post about a minority of workers forcing union membership on a majority that opposes it is a flat out lie. People know if a place they are looking to work at is a closed union shop, and they have the choice to find a non union shop if they do not agree with being represented by a union. It's the same kind of choice thousands of workers make when they choose to pass on a job because they do not like the benefits package, wage, vacation, etc. There are plenty of non-union shops in Minnesota, just check the numbers of union workers to non union. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By dan.mcgrath on
1/30/2012 |
| Purest form of democracy?! Hah! Thank God this nation wasn't formed as a "democracy," then! I think you need to study up on "card check" and exactly how union elections work. As little as 6% sometimes decide to unionize and force it on everyone else. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Thomas J. on
2/3/2012 |
| What would you consider a simple majority vote Dan? And I would love for you to provide one example of a real life shop that has ever voted to be union with as little as 6%. You can't and you won't because it is not on your footnotes from your right to work brochure. All this talk about people's voices and having government stay out of the private sector is all hogwash for you unless it benefits your cause. Any answers to low wages and high fatalities that right to work states own or is that not important to you and other "traditional values" Minnesotans. |
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Barb on
2/3/2012 |
Not sure how old Mr. Thomas J. is but he sure isn't in with the time of day. Jobs being scarce, my young son was hired at a grocery store under a mandate of pay to union dues. He works one hour less than full time. Still accountable for union dues without acquiring union benefits. No option to choose Mr. Thomas J. all those paid dues from my son is free money to the union. Where they're abusing my child, know there is much more. You Mr. Thomas J., are suggesting unions before actual work.To me, work is priority and if it's a crappy company it's not going to stand ground for long. get rid of the out of control, unfavorable, thuggish union pets of government. An extra cost of corruption no one needs. Unless if by choice.
|
|
|
Re: MN Study: Economic Benefit from Right to Work |
By Peter Lynn on
2/20/2012 |
| RTW=poverty level wages and benefits. See http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/ |
|
|
|
|
|