Union Rates Not Dropping Faster In RTW States

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 12/17/2012 | James Hohman

[MichCapCon]

Over at Michigan Radio, Rick Pluta makes an interesting observation: “The fact is union membership has typically dropped off in the other 23 states that have adopted ‘right-to-work’ laws.”

The fact that unionization is down is true. But adopting a RTW law, counterintuitively, does not seem to impact the rates of unionization. Unionization across the country is down, and there seem to be no difference in these trends between right-to-work and non-right-to-work states.

It makes intuitive sense that allowing a worker the option of whether or not to be in the union would result in more people choosing not to be union members. But the data does not indicate much of a difference. Unionization rates in right-to-work states are not decreasing at a greater rate than in non-right-to-work states.

There are only three states that have adopted a right-to-work law in the past 30 years: Idaho, which passed right-to-work legislation in 1985 and Oklahoma, which did so in 2001, and Indiana, which passed it earlier this year. There’s no data available yet on how Hoosier union members have responded.

Both Idaho and Oklahoma, like the U.S. as a whole, have had falling unionization rates over the entire data period, which begins in 1983. The chart below shows that the rates of the decrease have been similar in both states to the U.S. average. You would expect that the fall would be noticeably different in Oklahoma after 2001, but there does not appear to be a change. Michigan, on the other hand, has a higher unionization rate and also a faster rate of decline.

From the Union Membership and Coverage Database, available at unionstats.com Indeed, looking at the number of union members shows very small declines. In the year prior to the passage of right-to-work, there were 93,814 union members in Oklahoma. In 2011, this had fallen to 93,513 members — a decrease of just 301 union members, or 0.3 percent. The number of union members in the U.S. as a whole decreased by 9.4 percent over the same period.

Idaho, which reports much greater volatility in union membership over the period, had 31,640 union members in 1984, which fell to 30,560 in 2011: a decrease of 1,080 members, or 3.4 percent. The nation as a whole at this time lost 14.6 percent of its union members. Idaho likewise shows that RTW does not cause union membership to drop off.

If right-to-work legislation is about what detractors have asserted — that it’s about eliminating unions — then it would be a poor strategy. It’s an ineffective way of decreasing unionization in the states that have adopted it. Instead, these detractors should give greater credence to what supporters say it is about: giving workers the choice whether to join a union or not.

[cripplecreek]

I have a neighbor who is a steward and he's going to jump ship.

If anyone wants to be added to the Michigan Cap Con ping list, let me know.

[Buckeye McFrog]

It takes time to de-certify your union. It does not happen overnight with the passage of RTW. (In fact I suspect Obama is about to impose some variation of Card Check that will make it all the more difficult)

[Vigilanteman]

The secret is that union members (as opposed to their bureaucracy) actually benefit by being in right to work states for the following reasons:

1. A rising tide lifts all boats.
   
2. Even companies which have union contracts are more likely to locate in or expand operations in a RTW state.
   
3. RTW states tend to produce a higher rate of people with a good work ethic and fewer with an entitlement mentality.
   
4. Accordingly, see point #1.

[JPG]

When state governments stop acting as bagmen for the unions, the number of people who stop paying is substantial. WI is the most recent ‘Exhibit A’.

[cripplecreek]

I think members have to wait till contract negotiation time to opt out of their union and no doubt desertification is the same. However companies now have the upper hand and can force contract negotiations at the earliest possible date.

[Suz in AZ]

They are only looking at total number of members. Interesting that the time spans for OK and ID are totally different. Where are the current OK numbers?

If they looked at membership as a percentage of total jobs, I think there would be a whole different picture. Increase in jobs in the state without increase in union membership means a drop in percentage of members of those employed statewide.

[stylin19a]

seems to me they are looking at this wrong...should be looking at the difference in rate of increase.

[staytrue]

I believe there is nothing wrong with unions that work in a competitive situation as the competition will put the lid on out of control unions (or out of control management).

Anyone out of control will soon be rewarded with shrinking market share, lower paychecks or dividends and eventual bankruptcy.

The real problem are unions in monopoly situations or in too big to fail situations. That would be public sector unions who are in the most outrageous monopoly situation of all and auto workers (and auto management).

[shamusotoole]

Perhaps there is no more wealth left for them to plunder?

[dsrtsage]

I would bet that there is also an incredible amount of threat and intimidation to keep the workers in line.