The assault against the American worker that we witnessed in 2011 in states like Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio continues this year with the reintroduction of Indiana’s so-called right-to-work bill.
Rather than find an opinion piece about the bill written by someone who looks up facts and connects them to their impact on working families, the Argus-Dispatch printed on Sunday an opinion piece by James Sherk of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation (“Right-to-work: It really is right thing for America.”)
Sherk claims right-to-work laws benefit the economy and personal liberty, and he bases this judgment on “studies” he does not cite and “some workers” who remain unnamed.
But had he looked at the facts, as I hope the readers of this newspaper will do, you will find that workers and their families are worse off in states with right-to-work laws.
Despite the description in its title, the bill would not guarantee anyone a job.
However, for those people who work in other right-to-work states, their earnings are about 15 percent less than their counterparts in states without the rule, “The average worker in a right-to-work state is paid $30,167 a year, or about $5,333 less than workers in states that don’t have the rule, according to U.S. Labor Department data.” (Bloomberg)
Additionally, states with right-to-work on the books do not create jobs faster than those without it. According to an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study, four out of five of the fastest growing states in terms of workers’ income were free-bargaining states not right-to-work states.
Also, the likelihood that your employer sponsors health insurance is also reduced in a right-to-work state.
According to the EPI, “The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual job, and state-level characteristics.”
What this means is that if the U.S. as a whole decided to become right-to-work, there would be two million fewer workers with health insurance coverage.
Same trend exists on the likelihood of having employer-based pensions.
Truth is, we need to put Americans back to work that is meaningful, help builds our nation, and is good enough to support a family with dignity.
Recommending that states pass a law that has proven to result in lower wages, less health care coverage and pensions and actually creates fewer jobs is like saying the road to prosperity is paved with poverty — which may be true for the 1 percent.
What good are jobs which cannot support a family? How can a family plan for the future when, without benefit of union protection, a worker can be fired at-will, regardless of his work ethic? What kind of family benefits from this kind of race to the bottom?
Jerry Messer is president of the Quad City Federation of Labor.
