Raspberries for Compulsory Unionism
One very significant point for Right to Work legislation is that it fosters the creation and retention of high-paying, family-supporting jobs. As regular National Institute for Labor Relations Research website visitors know, there is a mountain of evidence indicating that legislation outlawing compulsory financial support of unions is economically beneficial.
A particularly powerful example of economic benefits is a recent survey of CEOs from around the country conducted by Chief Executive magazine.
The survey asked business leaders to grade all 50 states in three general categories that businesses invariably consider when they are contemplating where to make job-creating investments. In early 2017, CEOs were once again asked to draw upon their direct experience to rate each state for a) taxation and regulations, b) workforce quality, and c) living environment.
In its May/June issue, Chief Executive published its survey results for this year, based on responses received from more than 500 American CEOs. They showed a remarkable 78% of CEOs either “only hire” or “prefer to hire” in Right to Work states. Just 3% of CEOs expressed a preference for forced-unionism states! (See the above chart for more information.)
Overwhelmingly through the years, CEOs have judged that, in Right to Work states, employees have superior work ethics, real estate costs are relatively low, and public officials have a much more positive attitude towards business.
Every one of the 10 states rated as the “best for business” overall this year is a Right to Work state. In contrast, forced-unionism states dominated the bottom ranks of the 2017 survey. Not one of the bottom 13 states has a Right to Work law on the books.
Of course, the primary reason for enacting Right to Work laws is that compulsory unionism is wrong, plain and simple. The fact that compulsory unionism remains an economic albatross for more than 20 states and the nation as a whole helps explain why Right to Work measures are gaining more and more support in states and in Washington, D.C. where the freedom to refrain from joining a union has yet to be protected.