I would have to say it benefits neither. Those in favor of it claim it benefits workers by allowing them to seek employment in a union shop without being forced to join the union, therefore providing more job opportunities. The truth is, union membership is the lowest it has been in decades. The majority of available jobs are non-union jobs.

So why would a worker who is opposed to unions seek employment in a union shop anyway? Because the jobs in union shops are typically better jobs. Better Pay. Better benefits. Better safety programs. Better conditions overall. And all because of strength in numbers. The negotiating power of employees who have come together as a union is greater than the negotiating power of  an individual.

But unions, like any other organization, whether it be the NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Greenpeace, or The Sierra Club, need finances to operate. Unions are financed through the dues paid by the membership, as are the other organizations mentioned above.

So, in the long-term, RTW could be seen as a strategy to destroy the unions by removing their funding. This is accomplished through the short-term effects of what is essentially an entitlement program. It entitles non-union workers to reap the benefits of the bargaining power of the union without paying any of the cost.

Many of the younger generation currently entering the work force are relatively naive about the history of labor in this country. Things such as the forty hour work week, minimum wage, and overtime pay are frequently taken for granted. It is hard to convince people it is in their best interest to join the union, pay dues, and attend meetings on their own time, to actively participate in their union, when they can enjoy the same wages and benefits as the union employees without the personal sacrifice.

As long as the union employees have a strong bargaining position, the employers will pay the non-union employees comparable wage and benefit packages. If they didn’t, the non-union employees would see the benefits of union membership and would be more compelled to join the union.

But what happens when the majority of the employees opt out of the union and that strong bargaining position no longer exists? My prediction is that the employers will cut  wages, or at least allow them to stagnate. Wages have not even come close to keeping up with inflation over the last thirty years. There is no reason to believe that will improve when the right to collective bargaining has been taken away.

Benefits will most likely cease. Workers will be told (in fact are already being told) that benefits are too costly and threatening to cause the collapse of the company . If they want to have a job to go to , they will have to fund their own health care insurance and retirement plans. I believe there is a line in the movie, Heist: Who Stole the American Dream, that goes something like “If the average person could successfully manage investments, why are the bankers on Wall Street paid such outrageous sums?” Even if things never got worse, at the rate inflation has out paced income for the last thirty years, workers in this country, both union and non-union, could forget about retirement as we’d never be able to afford to retire.

Some RTW supporters claim passing Right to Work in states that don’t have it will make those states more attractive to business and thereby create more jobs. I don’t believe it. I’ve seen too many people move out of Right to Work states because there was no work. I think in today’s global economy, the reality is that American workers, union and non-union, are more likely competing with workers in China or India than competing between states. As U.S. employers ship jobs overseas, we find ourselves competing with foreign workers for the lowest wages. This is happening now. Large corporations have demonstrated they place a higher priority on maximizing profits to executives and share holders than on ensuring fair compensation for the wellbeing of the employees who actually do the work that makes the business a success. There is no reason to believe this will improve with the passage of Right to Work. I do not see any benefit to workers in Right to Work.

I stated earlier that I don’t believe it benefits employers either. As workers’ income declines, whether through decreased wages, increased inflation, or a combination of the two, the effects reach beyond the individual workers and their families. Big business may not feel the effects of decreased spending by a falling middle class in this country because it is offset by the increased spending of a rising middle class in places like China or India. But those employers that can not ship their business overseas, those that depend on the American economy to succeed, will feel it. Many of these are the same employers that the RTW supporters claim to be helping. The Mom & Pop businesses. As workers are forced to compete for the lowest wages, business owners will be forced to lower their prices in order for anyone to be able to afford their goods or services. As we effectively slip back in time to the days when only the wealthy could afford an education, it will become more difficult to find an educated work force, an un-nerving thought in today’s reality of technological dependence. I do not see any long-term benefits to any but the largest employers. Those who have the luxury of viewing workers as commodities, subject to the laws of supply and demand. Those that can afford to move their operations around the globe as necessary to capitalize on the cheapest labor they can find.

I’ve heard many of the same people who support Right to Work oppose any type of regulation on business. They claim that regulation by the government is un-necessary because the “market” will regulate business. Many of these same people are opposed to any type of so-called entitlement programs. From where I’m sitting it appears that Right to Work is both. Government regulation of both the unions and business. I say both the unions and business because what is often overlooked is the fact that in a union shop, both parties, the employers and the employees, represented collectively by their union, negotiated and agreed to a contract. Right to Work is a government intrusion on an agreement between two parties. Right to Work is also an entitlement program. One could think of it as “employed welfare”.  By passing a Right to Work law the government allows certain individuals entitlement to wages and benefits which they in no way negotiated or otherwise shared in the cost of obtaining.

With the non-union workforce growing and the unions in decline, I say no to Right to Work. The “market” will regulate it.