Unions have wasted no time coming out with guns blazing against HB 474, the Right to Work bill. It's no surprise since this bill will break up the monopoly they have over both businesses and employees.
Using "Collective Bargaining" Unions are able to "negotiate" on behalf of all employees working for a given company, with their power they are able to force most private businesses into agreeing on contracts which force every employee to pay union dues whether they want to or not. HB 474 will stop that from happening.
You can read the bill in full in the link above, I highly recommend doing so. What exactly is so threatening in giving employees a choice? If unions do everything those fighting against this bill claim then people should be more then happy to continue paying their dues and remain in the union, right? Of course if not then they can opt out and not fear losing their job as a result of it. Sounds like a win win to me but of course that means unions would have to show results to keep getting dues and they run the risk of losing some of the money they use to buy, er I mean campaign in elections with.
What I find interesting is that both sides are posting data showing things like salary increases etc and both sides claim that states with or without such laws (depending on which side they are on) benefits as a result. Thing is though when I attempt to verify even using the links provided by those against this bill I find data supporting why Right to Work laws benefit more then they hurt.
HERE you will find a link to a government report showing average wage increases from 2000 to 2001, this was provided in an attempt to argue that states with Right to Work laws average less then states without such laws. Look at the percent increases though.
States with Right to Work laws:
Alabama, Arizona,Arkansas, Kansas,Florida, Georgia,Idaho, Iowa,Louisiana, Mississippi,Nebraska, Nevada,North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
look at the percent pay increase for these states:
3.6%, 2.4%, 3.6%, 3.2%, 2.6%, .2%, 3.3%, 4.5%, 2.8%, 2.5%, 2.6%, 3.1%, 4.1%, 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.2%, 3.1%, 3.1%, 2.9%, 4.4%, 4.4%
During this time the National average was 2.5% increase so with the exception of Arizona and Idaho they were all ABOVE the national average for growth averaging 3.2% salary increase.
Remember this link was provided to me by someone claiming Right to Work laws hurt employees.
In fact though when you look at salaries from 1977 to 2008 per capita income growth averaged 54.7%.
In states with Right to Work laws it averaged 62.3%
In states without such laws it averaged 52.8%
Also keep in mind here that we aren't talking about abolishing unions or preventing them, if people find benefit in a union they can join. If not they can opt out and not fear losing their job.
But when you read the comments from those against this bill you'd think the sky was falling. My favorit was a post on the Telegraph from a poster going by the name JanLive who wrote this:
The infant mortality rate is 16 percent higher in right to work states.
So being able to opt out of a union results in dead babies? Nothing to do with maybe factors like proximity to hospitals, teen and unwed birth rates, drug usage rates among expecting mothers or anything like that? It has to do with whether or not someone is in a Union... right!!!
This country was founded on the ideals of freedom and ability to choose for ones self what is best so given that there is no down side to passing this law and all state reps should get behind it.