A somewhat familiar issue will appear on the ballot next month when Missourians vote on Proposition A, the so-called “right-to-work” law (see complete ballot sample printed on page 7).
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
Find out how to advertise here - Email us! [email protected]
Union labor organizations across the country will be focused on the Aug. 7 primary election here to see if Missouri becomes the next step in a nationwide march toward right-to-work — or if Missouri voters refute policy passed by the Missouri General Assembly. The policy has been on hold since a coalition of opponents gathered enough signatures to put this referendum on the ballot.
Right-to-work prohibits unions from requiring a person to pay union fees as a condition of employment. Workers can already opt out of full union membership and pay only for the cost of collective bargaining with the employer. But under right-to-work, employees could opt out of paying anything for the cost of representation.
A “no” vote would prevent the law from going into place; a “yes” vote supports making Missouri a right-to-work state.
The labor-backed campaign hoping to defeat Missouri’s law has money from national sources. We Are Missouri is a political action committee which has reportedly received $1 million from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Likewise, those wanting to make Missouri a right-to-work state have received money from outside sources. The Missourians for Freedom to Work reportedly received $232,000 from the National Right to Work Committee, an organization affiliated with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Missouri’s vote comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that imposed a policy like right-to-work on public-sector unions nationally. State-level right-to-work policies have been gaining steam, with five states adopting the policy since 2012, even in Michigan where labor is heavily union. Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky have adopted right-to-work in recent years.
Proponents of right-to-work argue it gives workers choice and brings economic benefits to the state. Without right-to-work, they say, companies looking to relocate workers will not consider Missouri. Proponents also argue right-to-work actually helps increase hourly wages through job creation and demand for labor.
Pro-labor groups argue just the opposite. They say right-to-work creates a “free rider” problem where workers can decline to pay for collective bargaining services that benefit them. That weakens unions and drives down wages.
Analysts from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (Washington, D.C.) and the Missouri Budget Project (St. Louis) focus on the impact of Prop A by collecting data on the states bordering Missouri that already have right-to-work laws in effect. Opponents use their research, to argue how right-to-work laws have no impact on job growth, and negatively affect middle-class wages.
Using data from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, EPI analysts found that “right-to-work” laws like Prop A are associated with lower wages and a weaker middle class. This decline in household income leads to lower aggregate demand — that is, less spending in local economies.
Missouri Budget Project research shows that laws like Prop A significantly reduce the health and retirement benefits that employers offer to their workers.
“We estimate that 76,125 fewer workers would be covered by an employer-sponsored health plan under right-to-work,” according to Lindsey Baker of the Missouri Budget Project. “More than 75% of these adults have at least one child.”
Other key takeaways:
For both union and nonunion workers, wages are 3.1% lower in states with laws like Prop A.
Workers are also less likely to have employer-sponsored health coverage in these states.
Missouri has the same unemployment rate, 3.8%, as its neighbors with these so-called “right-to-work” laws, suggesting that such laws have no impact on job growth.