What anti-union laws (so-called “Right to work”) do:
The purpose of anti-union legislation is to undermine the power of working people to have a say in their wages, benefits, and safety. The politicians who promote these laws are usually funded by corporate interests that aim to increase profit by cutting benefits and wages and destroying the right of workers to negotiate with their employers. In the public sector, these laws pave the way to slash funding for schools, hospitals, firehouses, etc. Public services and resources are shifted to private companies and transformed into commodities (e.g. private schools, private security) available to those who can afford to pay.
Of course, that’s never how these laws are presented to the public. Typically, arguments are made that a less union-friendly state will attract more jobs.
Evidence-based analysis of so-called RTW law shows that there is no relationship between economic growth and anti-union policies:
*RTW law lowers wages. In RTW states, working people make an average of $1500 less per year and are more likely to go without health insurance, whether they are in a union or not.
*There is no evidence that RTW lowers unemployment or boosts job creation. Surveys have shown that RTW is not a factor in companies’ decision to relocate to a new state. In fact, higher wage high tech firms prefer states with collective bargaining rights.
*RTW threatens economic growth, because when wages are lower, consumers have less money to spend.
Source: Briefing Paper #326, Economic Policy Institute, September 15, 2011
Politicians who argue for RTW claim to support workers who want to withhold financial support from the union that represents them because they don’t agree with the union’s agenda. First of all, this is a specious argument: People who elect to pay only this fair share are already protected by law from having their fee go toward political causes. We get audited every year to make sure. Also, it overlooks a basic question of fairness. Unions are required by federal law to negotiate on behalf of and represent everyone in their bargaining unit, regardless of membership status. Each person that benefits directly from union representation, in the form of salary raises and other benefits, should pay their fair share of the cost of that representation. Finally, it is shortsighted and not in the best interests of a states’ residents, because all workers face lower wages and benefits when unions aren’t allowed to bargain.
What’s happening in Michigan:
Last Thursday, both the House and the Senate passed RTW bills. Among other things, these bills eliminate fair share contributions to the cost of bargaining. This will require unions to provide equal representation and benefits to people who choose to pay nothing toward the cost.
How it would affect GEO: Because it would no longer be a choice between paying dues or a fair share service fee, this would likely cause our membership percentage to fall sharply. When that happened to TAA, the grad union in Madison, Wisconsin, they quickly had their healthcare benefits cut by the University. GEO’s funding would be slashed, which would then require us to have few or no staffers, no office, no technological tools for organizing and bargaining.
It doesn’t make financial sense to undercut our power to make sure we keep getting good raises and strong benefits. Here at GEO, the 1.68%/1.48% of salary we currently pay in dues is substantially less than the raise we were able to get into our contract just this year.
We are not trying to be scaremongers, but this is really serious. Every time we go to the bargaining table, the University has tried to take away our healthcare — something that our members have been telling us is really important. The University will try this again when our contract expires next year, and without GEO we will not be in a position to fight it. That’s why it is so important to stand together.
Comments are closed