Right-to-work facts vs. myths
Most U.S. states (26) have a right-to-work law. They’ve proven effective at expanding worker freedom and improving state economies, which has made them popular across most of the country. But they have yet to expand into the Northeast, which now has lower economic growth than the South. If New Hampshire becomes the 27th state to adopt a right-to-work law, and the only one in the entire Northeast, the state instantly would become more attractive to manufacturers, many of whom won’t even consider opening a shop in a state without a right-to-work law.
Though New Hampshire prides itself on being a pro-business, pro-growth state, especially relative to its neighbors, it has yet to adopt a right-to-work law. The biggest obstacle has long been a widespread belief in several myths about right-to-work laws. This briefing paper explains why those myths are untrue.
Myth 1. Right-to-work laws are anti-freedom
Labor leaders claim that the existing legal framework governing organized labor is the organic outgrowth of the free market. The current rules represent freedom, and a right-to-work law, they say, equals “government interference in the private sector of the free market.”
This is Orwellian doublespeak. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which mandates that a certified labor union be the sole representative for all employees in a collective bargaining unit, is hardly the free market at work. It is by definition government interference in the private sector. Union leaders claim simultaneously that this arrangement equals “freedom” and that they are burdened by a federal mandate to represent all workers regardless of union membership. One of those could be true, or neither could be true. But both can’t be true.
In reality, the NLRA imposes a legal framework that favors unions over workers by allowing labor contracts that compel non-members against their will to contribute financially to unions. The law used to allow contracts to force non-members to pay full union dues. Unions claimed that even their political spending was essential and therefore non-members should be forced to fund it. In Communication Workers of America v. Beck (1988), the Supreme Court held that compelling non-members to pay full union dues violated their First Amendment rights. Since then, private sector union contracts have been allowed to collect from non-members only the fees directly related to collective bargaining and representation.
But this too is a violation of an individual’s First Amendment rights to free association and free speech. Unions negotiate benefits all the time that individual workers might not want, or that might even harm them. A contract that increases pension benefits at the expense of higher wages hurts young workers who don’t intend to spend a career at that employer. Non-members must pay for these negotiations, even if they disagree with the union position. That’s a plain First Amendment violation.
If union leaders really wanted workplace contracts to be free from government intervention, they’d advocate abolishing the NLRA. They don’t because the NLRA is a government intervention that restricts worker freedom to the benefit of labor unions.
Right-to-work laws are a corrective to this. They restore workers’ rights to not associate with an organization that they don’t want to support. In right-to-work states, unions cannot forcibly take money from non-members. To get that money, they have to persuade non-members to join. Persuasion is how free people exchange goods and services in a free economy. Coercion is the opposite.
Myth 2. Right-to-work laws create freeloaders
We addressed this claim in January. Union leaders claim that their negotiations and representation are behaviors that only benefit non-member workers. This is demonstrably untrue. Union leaders negotiate contracts or take positions in labor disputes that do not always benefit their own members, much less non-members.
Giving up your right to bargain on your own behalf means sacrificing your autonomy as an employee. By handing those powers to union leadership, a worker trades independence for dependence. His compensation is no longer determined by his own individual performance, but by his status as a member of a larger group. That tradeoff can make one better off. Or it can backfire.
Union contracts that favor seniority over merit disadvantage young, ambitious workers, for example.
A 2024 Ford Motor Co. survey found that only 33% of American Baby Boomers would take a 20% pay cut in exchange for a better quality of life, but 60% of Millennials would. A young employee who would gladly exchange a lower wage for more flexible hours is made worse off by a union contract that makes the opposite trade.
In 2009, Gov. John Lynch had to cut $25 million in labor costs from the state budget. He offered rotating furloughs to workers so no one would have to be fired. The State Employees Association said no, choosing layoffs instead. The governor laid off 250 state employees. They clearly were made worse off by the union leadership’s inept negotiations.
Far from creating freeloaders, right-to-work laws restore a measure of financial autonomy to workers. Unions in right-to-work states can no longer behave as monopoly providers, but must convince non-members to join. That changes their behavior and makes them more responsive to the needs and preferences of all members of a bargaining unit. Introducing this market incentive is the only way to improve the percentage of workers who will actually benefit from union representation.
Myth 3. Right-to-work laws would hurt the state economy
Union leaders claim that right-to-work laws are economically harmful. The exact opposite is true.
A 1997 University of Minnesota study found “a large, abrupt increase in manufacturing activity” associated with the adoption of right-to-work laws. “Manufacturing employment in the states without right-to-work laws is virtually the same today as it was in 1947,” the study found. “In the right-to-work states, manufacturing employment has increased 150 percent.”
A 2013 Mackinac Center for Public Policy study found that right-to-work laws increased average real personal income growth, average annual population growth and average annual employment growth.
A 2023 Federal Reserve study found that right-to-work laws were associated with increases in job openings and employment.
A 2021 Harvard University study found that right-to-work laws increased employment to population ratios (the percentage of the working-age population who are employed), increased manufacturing employment (by 28%), increased total employment, increased labor force participation, reduced poverty (especially childhood poverty), increased upward mobility and reduced long-term joblessness.
Were New Hampshire to become the only right-to-work state in the Northeast, the economic literature suggests that we would reap measurable economic benefits, including a significant increase in manufacturing employment.
Myth 4. Right-to-work laws are about “union busting”
Labor leaders claim that the real motive behind right-to-work laws is to destroy unions. But why would letting people choose where to spend their own money destroy the institution that currently takes their money involuntarily?
That could happen only if nearly everyone flees labor unions as soon as they get the chance. Why would they do this if those institutions offer the level of value that their proponents claim? Obviously, they wouldn’t. And we have plenty of evidence that this doesn’t happen.
Union membership has been shown to decline initially after adoption of a right-to-work law. This suggests that a lot of workers think that the benefits of membership aren’t worth the costs. Unions can address this by competing harder for members.
The 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME made compulsory agency fees illegal in the public sector. With right-to-work implemented across all government workplaces in the country seven years ago, we have a national test case. Though public sector union membership declined, the unions have not disappeared. Some, including the State Employees Association of New Hampshire, have made changes to attract new members and have successfully negotiated large pay increases.
Neither the goal nor the effect of right-to-work laws is to destroy unions. The goal is to restore the individual worker’s constitutional right to free association and free expression. The effect, demonstrated through decades of research, is to create more employment, particularly in manufacturing, and generate more economic growth.
Myth 5. Right-to-work laws are unpopular
Labor leaders have a neat trick to make politicians think their anti-right-to-work position is popular. At public hearings on right-to-work bills, they pack the room with union members, giving the impression that the public opposes right-to-work. But when the issue is polled, a very different result emerges.
We polled this issue in 2021. We asked New Hampshire voters whether they would “be in favor of changing the law so that employees who don’t want to join a union could choose not to pay union fees.” More than 2/3 of voters (68%) said they favored a right-to-work law. Even among Democrats, more favored than opposed right-to-work (44%-41%). Republicans broke in favor of right-to-work by a margin of 88%-6%, and unaffiliated voters favored it by a margin of 73%-18%.
Right-to-work support in N.H.
All voters: 68% support, 22% oppose
Republicans: 88% support, 6% oppose
Democrats: 44% support, 41% oppose
Independents: 73% support, 18% oppose
Those are overwhelming numbers in favor of right-to-work. Nationally the figures are even better. Last year, the National Right to Work Foundation polled registered voters on this question: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Workers should never be forced to join a union or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.” Voters favored right-to-work by 82%-10%. Republicans favored it by 86%-8%, Independents by 80%-6%, and Democrats by 76%-14%.
Right-to-work support nationally
All voters: 82% support, 10% oppose
Republicans: 86% support, 6% oppose
Democrats: 76% support, 14% oppose
Independents: 80% support, 6% oppose
Far from being a political liability, support for right-to-work legislation puts lawmakers on the side of supermajorities of voters.
Conclusion
Right-to-work laws have been studied for decades. Research shows mixed results on some points, clear results on others. What’s become evident over the decades is that right-to-work laws are associated with statistically significant gains in employment, particularly manufacturing employment, job opportunities, population growth and economic growth. If New Hampshire adopts a right-to-work law, we would expect to see improvements in all of those areas, along with an improvement in state business tax revenues resulting from the additional business activity.
As for freedom vs. coercion, workers have First Amendment rights not to associate with or fund membership organizations that they choose not to join. If workers want to join unions, they should be free to do so. Preferably, they would have the option of joining more than one union (something that current federal law makes difficult). Right-to-work laws create freedom, not freeloaders. And for that reason, they are extremely popular, which is why they have been adopted in a majority of U.S. states. New Hampshire’s economy, and its workers, would benefit if the Granite State becomes the 27th state to protect workers’ First Amendment rights by adopting a right-to-work law.
Download this policy brief here: JBC Brief RTW Facts vs. Myths.
