January 29, 2015

Editor:

"Most of the arguments against right-to-work have little basis in fact," James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation claimed in a story recently published in several Kentucky newspapers.
His arguments for right-to-work have no basis in fact.

In his article, Sherk cited several "myths" about right-to-work and then he purported to provide us with "facts."His "facts" are myths.

For example, he wrote, "Myth: Right-to-work laws prohibit unions." Sherk was obviously implying that unions make such claims. I don't know of anybody in any union who has ever said that right-to-work laws forbid unions.

Sherk also wrote that it is a "myth" that RTW laws harm unions, that they allow workers to enjoy a "free ride" and that they lower wages. He is wrong on all three counts.

RTW laws are calculated to undermine unions by enabling employees at a unionized workplace to receive union won wages and benefits without joining the union or paying the union a service fee. The idea is to discourage workers from joining unions, thereby weakening and ultimately destroying unions.

Not coincidentally, the states with the lowest percentages of union membership are right to work states. Nor it is a coincidence that they are among the poorest states in the Union.

Mississippi and Arkansas are prime examples. Few states have higher poverty rates than Mississippi and Arkansas, which have had RTW laws for years.

The term "right-to-work" is a deliberate deception. "Right-to-freeload" accurately describes these laws. Federal law requires unions to represent the non-union employees the same as they represent union employees.

In addition, the Heritage Foundation writer's "facts" included the claim that unions often spend little money representing their members. Last year my union, United Steelworkers Local 9447 in Calvert City, spent $94,000 of the $120,000 we took in negotiating contracts for three of our units.

Sherk would have readers of his article believe that union dues mostly go to pay big salaries for what people like him call "union bosses" or "union fat cats." But here's another fact for Sherk: Every penny that a union spends is subject to a vote of the membership. The membership sets the salaries for all union officers, right up to international presidents.

He also says it is a "myth" that RTW laws don't bring jobs into a state. He says it is a "fact" that "companies consider RTW laws a major factor when deciding where to locate."

Michigan and Indiana, the latest states to pass RTW laws, have not seen the surge in jobs right to work proponents claimed would automatically happen. On average, salaries in non-right-to-work states are still higher than in right-to-work states.

Also, many people who are involved in recruiting industries, or who are authorities on the topic, say RTW is not a major factor in determining where a company moves.

In opposing Todd County's proposed RTW ordinance, County Attorney Harold Mac Johns told Hopkinsville radio WHOP, "What I've learned in industrial recruitment is location, availability of labor, transportation, availability -- site availability -- is much more important and we've never -- and I've been around the industrial foundation for almost 30 years -- and no one's ever brought it (right-to-work) up when I've been present."

Others say essentially the same thing. "In the grand scheme of things in Western Kentucky, right to work is low in significance in hindering job creation," said Chad Chancellor, former chief executive officer of the Greater Paducah Economic Development Council.

"...RTW laws were found to have no statistically significant impact in explaining Kentucky's lagging economic growth rate," said a report issued by the Center for Business and Economic Research of the University of Kentucky's Gatton College of Business and Economics.

"Right-to-work laws are a welcome mat for companies who care most about low-wage, unskilled labor and who are committed to a region only until they are able to relocate to someplace where the laws protecting workers are even weaker," said Dr. Ann Markusen, director of the Project on Regional and Industrial Economics at the University of Minnesota.

"Low road companies do care about right-to-work laws, because their primary concern is minimizing the cost of labor," said Wim Wiewel, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at the University of Baltimore, and formerly dean of the College of Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Here's another quote Mr. Sherk might find interesting: "We're not purporting to prove that right-to-work produces superior economic performance." That quote is from Stanley Greer, newsletter editor and spokesperson for the National Right to Work Committee.

Finally, Sherk cited polls he said prove most people favor RTW laws. But the only poll that counts is the one on election day. Last fall, Republican House candidates across the state ran on a promise to pass a right-to-work law if the GOP flipped the Democratic House.

Republican candidates gave speech after speech in favor of right to work. They called for right-to-work in their campaign literature and in their radio and TV commercials. In the end, the Democrats held their 54-46 House majority.

Here's the bottom line. Right-to-work laws are among the oldest union-busting tools around. All right-to-work laws guarantee is the right to work for less.

Sincerely,
Jeff Wiggins, president, Western Kentucky AFL-CIO Area Council, Paducah