Thoughts on right to work

To the editor:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were just a few of the assurances made in the Declaration of Independence.  With the passage of Right to Work in Indiana, we have come one step closer to returning these basic unalienable rights to the people.
For the record, I believe unions played a part in history for the American worker.  During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s unions fought to improve the safety and well being of workers.  Because of their efforts, federal laws have been enacted to provide protections for all workers, union or non-union.  Many non-union businesses have adopted programs created by unions, and created their own programs to entice employees for employment.  This is the glory of the free market system allowing companies to compete for workers who are selling time and skill to the highest bidder.  I would advocate that employers’ competition for labor, not a union’s representation, is what improves wages, insurance, and retirement plans.  Unions today have become little more than money launderers for the Democratic Party, not advocates for the welfare of workers.
To expose the biggest RTW myth, I have taken the following directly from the AFL-CIO’s website: “[RTW] allows workers to pay nothing and get all the benefits of union membership. Right to work laws say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.”  
As a conservative I dislike “free riders”, and must admit that when reading this, I too felt compelled to agree with the unions.  However, further investigation yields that under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, unions can form “members only” contracts to avoid representing the “free riders.”  Nonetheless, most unions choose to form as “exclusive bargaining representatives” to allow them to negotiate for all workers irrelevant to the workers personal choice.  Unions choose to represent “free riders” to keep them from negotiating and advancing on their own merits.  The choice prevents “free riders” from potentially earning better jobs and pay than their union counterparts with more seniority.
Unions claim RTW states are less safe than non-RTW states.  Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows occupational injuries in RTW states are lower at 3.5 per 100 employees, while non-RTW states had 3.9 injuries per 100 employees.  However, fatalities in RTW states are slightly higher with 4.3 vs. 3.1 per 100,000 employees.  This translates to 2,200 annual deaths in RTW states compared to 2,400 in non-RTW states.  This data shows that injuries/fatalities are not bias to RTW status.
The factors affecting wages are numerous, so it’s difficult for organizations to accurately compile data from government agencies to form a conclusion on RTW’s efficacy.  The AFL-CIO compares average annual pay from 2001 Bureau of Labor statistics without accounting for average cost of living expenses.  Their findings support that workers in non-RTW states earned $35,500 while workers in RTW states earned $30,167.  After adjusting for living expenses, a study by the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center found that in 2009 the annual per-capita disposable income was $35,543 in right-to-work states and $33,389 in non right-to-work states.  Both studies show that organizations can manipulate statistics to support either cause.  Therefore, RTW has minimal impact on wages and will only enhance an individual’s personal liberties.
The reality is regardless of Right to Work, union membership in Indiana has dropped from 14.1 percent to 8.9 percent in the last decade.  Studies have historically shown that very few people take the “free rider” approach, but continue to pay dues.  Right to Work does not restrict workers from forming unions if they desire to. Right to Work simply gives individuals a choice.  Support a union or not, depending on whether they feel the union is adequately representing their interests.  
As said by Thomas Jefferson, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”  
The biggest gain I can attribute to a Right to Work law is individual liberty, and what American wouldn’t support that?
Matt Minnich
Portland, IN[[In-content Ad]]