StateStats: Right-To-Work Laws: May 2012 | STATE LEGISLATURES MAGAZINE

It’s up to state legislatures to decide whether workers must join a union to get or keep a job. So far, 23 states—along with Guam—have decided workers should have a “right to work” without having to join a union.

A renewed focus on collective bargaining rights in the last two years has rekindled interest in these laws. Sixteen states considered right-to-work bills last year, although none passed. So far this year, lawmakers in 12 states have introduced bills; Indiana’s legislation passed in February.

Proponents of right-to-work laws argue they attract more businesses and create more jobs. Opponents counter that workers in right-to-work states earn lower wages, thereby decreasing consumer demand, resulting in fewer jobs. Right-to-work states tend to have much lower rates of union membership.

The first right-to-work laws were passed in the 1940s and 1950s in response to the growth of unions. There was a surge of interest in the 1970s and again in the 1990s, but only a handful of states have enacted right-to-work laws since that initial wave. — Jeanne Mejeur

The Pros and Cons

The Heritage Foundation Says (Pro)

• Right-to-work states attract more business investment.
• Foreign investment in Oklahoma, for example, increased after the state passed a right-to-work law.
• States that attract more investment create more jobs.
• Unionized firms earn lower profits.
• Right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates.

The Center for American Progress Says (Con)

• Workers in right-to-work laws earn lower wages.
• Lower wages decrease consumer demand, resulting in fewer jobs.
• Oklahoma, for example, lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs after the state passed a right-to-work law.
• Workers in right-to-work states are less likely to have health insurance.
• Right-to-work laws undermine unions.