It makes unions unsustainable – studies prove.

“Right to work” laws have a direct effect on workers’ ability to sustain unions. Working people in states that enable unions to collect fees from every worker they represent are more than twice as likely to either be in a union or protected by a union contract than those in “right to work” states.3 At the same time, undercutting unions through “right to work” laws reduces workers’ ability to negotiate higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions.

Even workers at non-union businesses benefit when unions are strong. The presence of effective unions raises wages and job quality for workers throughout the economy, as non-unionized employers compete with unionized workplaces to attract and retain qualified workers.

A rigorous recent study from the Economic Policy Institute evaluated the impact of “right to work” by controlling for the effects of worker characteristics and state labor market conditions on wages. In “right to work” states, the median full-time worker (whether or not they are in a union) earns $1,500 a year less than their counterparts in states that allows unions to collect fees from every worker they represent.4 Workers in “right to work” states are also significantly less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance or a pension through their job.5

Despite proponents’ claims, there is little evidence that these laws significantly impact where firms choose to locate or the rate of business growth. For example, academic studies found no impact of “right to work” on manufacturing employment.6 Surveys of corporate executives consistently find that factors such as good infrastructure and the availability of a skilled and educated workforce outrank the relevance of “right to work” in deciding where to locate new facilities.7