• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • "Right to Work" Headed to New Hampshire, Indiana?

    Tuesday in South Bend, Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels (R) faced a question that’s been bubbling to the surface in the Hoosier State: Is making Indiana a “right to work” state a priority for his last year in office?

    It’s an issue that came to the fore in New Hampshire this year, too, where the state legislature passed a right-to-work law, only to see it vetoed by the governor. An override vote may succeed, and the measure could come up before the end of this year’s legislative session. And in Ohio, a Tea Party group is pushing for right-to-work through a constitutional amendment process.

    In a state that adopts a right-to-work law, workers are protected from being fired for not paying union dues. Heritage’s James Sherk explains in a new paper that without those laws, workers under union contract must pay 1 percent to 2 percent of their wages in dues whether or not they support the union. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income.

    There’s a good reason that states are looking to make the right-to-work switch. Sherk says that doing so can reduce the financial benefit from organizing workplaces where unions have limited support, make unions less aggressive, encourage business investment, and ultimately attract new jobs and reduce unemployment. In fact, Sherk writes, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent).

    Though Daniels hasn’t said whether he supports the legislation, WSBT.com reports that, according to the governor, Indiana misses out on one-third of the opportunities for more new business because it doesn’t have a right-to-work law in place:

    Here’s what we do know: it costs us jobs, it does.… The businesses only want a state where this protection is provided to workers. I have to say, especially in this tough economy, the state needs every edge it can get.

    Those laws, though, face strong union opposition. Sherk explains:

    The union movement strongly opposes right-to-work laws. It has self-interested motives in doing so: Union membership fell 15 percent after Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws.

    Most of the union-represented workers who choose not to pay dues when given the option are those who do not benefit from union contracts. Disproportionate numbers of highly educated workers, for example, choose not to pay dues—the very workers held back by union seniority systems. Without the threat of losing their jobs, the union movement will not persuade these workers to pay dues.

    “Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense,” Sherk concludes. And he says that lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals “should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition.”

    Click here to read more of Sherk’s paper Right to Work Increases Jobs and Choices.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to "Right to Work" Headed to New Hampshire, Indiana?

    1. Bobbie says:

      "right to work?" laws? authorized by government? that's communism! holding back the economy! WHY? why did those in power after Reagan, let it come to this? if unions have any good intent, they wouldn't be forcing themselves WITH INTIMIDATION into everything that works and where there is no interest for UNION! because of their intrusion into private businesses, they're forcing people from their businesses, to have to vote to keep them OUT! no one is asking for them! they're harassing, conniving and corrupting.

      Desperate for money as there's no excuse to refuse voter integrity, it will commence. Unions and their acorn nuts will have plenty of money to bribe for democrat votes. Maybe they'll take the money but use their sense to vote for those of strength, courage and dignity to this country and her people. That doesn't define democrat!

      Unions serve no purpose but communism and dictatorship through the democratic party! tearing this country down with the support of democrat top leads!

    2. Robb Nunya says:

      Actually, right to work is the antithesis of Communism. It's sad that we have to pass a law to restore people's rights because of the communist practices in some states (read:unions). And yes, unions are commies. At one time, they were necessary, but the day they became mandatory to hold a job is the day they became useless and evil and needed to be purged from our system. They're the bane of existence in the US.

    3. One2Stupid says:

      Let's see if I have this right. In order to get and keep a job you must give a private organization a part of your paycheck, even if you don't want to. This private organization uses that money to support certain government officials who then continue to give them the power to decide who gets or keeps a job and who doesn't. Somebody needs to look up "Freedom", “Bribery” and "Corruption" in the dictionary.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×