Wisconsin Council 40
LEGISLATIVE ALERT
AFSCME Green Sheet
Right to Work (for less)

www.afscmecouncil40.org
 

August 29, 2008                                                                       Volume #30, Issue #27

RIGHT TO WORK (FOR LESS) - In previous sessions, proposals have been introduced in the legislature to make Wisconsin a so-called “Right to Work” state.  Unfortunately, the deceptive name of these bills creates confusion among elected officials, as well as the voting public.  In all honesty, these bills should be called “Right to Work for Less”.

Supporters of these bills have tried to make an argument that the laws governing labor unions in Wisconsin should allow someone to receive the full benefit of being a member of the union even if they are not a dues paying member of the union.  In making their arguments, “Right to Work for Less” advocates attempt to undermine the validity of the democratic structure of unions, where members have the ultimate control of the organization, and whether or not they want to continue to participate in that organization through their votes.

However, these simple and widely agreed upon concepts of democratic institutions and paying your fair share are not the only reasons to oppose “Right to Work for Less” legislation.  In fact, there are many economic reasons states should avoid having these harmful laws on the books.  Among them:

Lower Wages
In the most recent data available, the average worker in a right to work state made on average of $5,333 a year less than workers in other states.  Weekly wages were $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states.

Health Care
Twenty-one percent (21%) more people lacked health insurance in right to work states compared to free-bargaining states.

Pay Equity
A 2002 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics study showed union women earned $149 more each week than nonunion women.  Also, union membership narrowed the pay gap for women with the national gap between men’s and women’s pay being thirty-two percent (32%)—but between all men and union women the gap was only five percent (5%).

The same study shows that Latino union members earn forty-five percent (45%) ($180) more each week than nonunion Latinos; African Americans earn thirty percent (30%) ($140) more each week if they are union members.

Statewide Economic Effects
The impact of “Right to Work for Less” laws is not only felt by unionized workers.  Protecting the free-bargaining status of a state elevates the income of workers across the state.  More workers earning family sustaining wages means there are fewer workers who will work for less. This forces low-paying employers to raise wages to attract or keep employees.

Additionally, higher union wages mean more disposable income for consumers, helping stimulate the economy.  This leads to more jobs and less unemployment.

Furthermore, “Right to Work for Less” reduces consumer spending. Because union membership means higher wages, higher unionization within a community means consumers have more to spend.  That’s good for local companies, especially those in retail sales and services.

Finally, studies have shown that unions increase productivity by encouraging new technology, labor management coordination, and increased training.

This fall, AFSCME members should talk to candidates for Wisconsin’s State Assembly and Senate and make sure they understand what “Right to Work for Less” legislation truly does.  Inform them of the harmful effects these bills would have on workers, employers and the state’s economy, and ask them to pledge to oppose “Right to Work for Less” legislation, should they be elected to the state legislature.
 

For more information, call the AFSCME Area Office at 608-836-6666.