Businesses Lopsidedly Prefer to Hire in Right to Work States
As regular readers of the National Right to Work Newsletter know, there is a mountain of evidence indicating that laws and legislation authorizing and promoting compulsory union financial support as a job condition are economically harmful.
One especially powerful example is the survey of CEOs from around the country that Chief Executive magazine annually conducts.
The survey asks 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.
Recently, 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 300 CEOs across industries.
Overwhelmingly through the years, job creators 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 toward business.
Conscientious, Talented Employees Usually Hurt by Union Monopoly Bargaining
And this year every one of the top seven, and 18 of the top 19, states rated as “best for business” overall are in Right to Work states.
In contrast, forced-unionism states dominated the bottom ranks of the 2018 survey.
Not one of the bottom 13 states has a Right to Work law on the books.
“Compulsory unionism is wrong, plain and simple,” said Greg Mourad, Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee.
“The fact is, conscientious and talented employees are often economically harmed when they are forced, by government policy, to accept an unwanted union as their ‘exclusive’ bargaining agent on matters concerning their pay, benefits, and working conditions.
“Harvard economist Richard Freeman, arguably the leading academic apologist for monopolistic unionism in the U.S., has actually paid tribute to union bosses’ remarkable success in ‘removing performance judgments as a factor in determining individual employees’ pay.’ ”
Forced Dues are ‘Like Pouring Salt in a Wound’
“And,” Mr. Mourad continued, “when unionized employees who would surely get paid more if their employer could take their performance into account are forced to pay dues or fees to the union bosses who prevent the employer from doing so — that’s like pouring salt in a wound.”
Just last year, Chief Executive directly surveyed CEOs about the impact of the forced-unionism system on their businesses.
The results showed that 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 chart on this page for more information.)
“As Congress and the White House seek to remove government-imposed impediments that are largely responsible for years of sluggish growth,” said Mr. Mourad, “they can’t afford to overlook the massive burdens imposed on business investment by the forced-dues provisions in federal labor statutes.
“Even states that already have Right to Work laws, and thus protect employees from being directly hit by compulsory unionism, suffer a lot of collateral damage.
“Countless Right to Work state-based businesses have major out-of-state suppliers and customers that are hamstrung by compulsory unionism. Such businesses would clearly share the benefits if their partners were freed from the burden of Big Labor monopoly control.”
Mr. Mourad urged Committee members and supporters to keep turning up the pressure on their elected officials to cosponsor and seek roll-call votes on H.R.785 and S.545, pending legislation that would repeal all current federal labor law provisions that authorize compulsory union dues and fees as a job condition.