Add new comment

It does make some valid points about Union activities though. I wouldn't really want to be a part of a union that supported something I didn't and I understand that. The article cherry-picks when it states that Nevada and Iowa have relatively high unionization rates. 20 of the 25 least unionized states have RTW laws. Less than 11 percent of the work force in each of those 25 states are members of unions. Of the 25 most unionized states, 3 have RTW laws, Nevada (15th), Indiana (22nd) and Iowa (24th). Nevada and Iowa don't exactly have large workforces either, Nevada has the 17th smallest workforce and Iowa has the 22nd smallest workforce. Indiana is probably the lone exception as it has the 15th largest workforce. Interesting enough, 8 of the 25 largest workforce states have under 7 percent unionization and all 8 of them have RTW laws. None of that means Right-To-Work kills unions, although it would seem that would be the effect since union dues are no longer required, less people would pay them to the point that it wouldn't make sense to have a union. Short term, this will probably have little effect on wages/annual salaries but it remains to be seen what happens long term. Perhaps it's true that unions today don't actually do what their supposed to do which is represent the workforce in salary/benefits negotiations however the need for workforce representation remains necessary. Without workforce organization/representation there is nothing stopping employers from paying minimum salaries and benefits in order to maximize profits. The article makes a better case that we should have union regulation laws instead of anti-union laws. If unions were regulated and had limitations on what percentages they could spend on non-representation activities then that would likely be favorable to everyone.