The euphemism “right to work” is a useful rhetorical tool beloved by anti-labor politicians. A euphemism is substituting a positive or innocuous term for a more negative one. It is like sprinkling sugar on something unpleasant as suggested by Mary Poppins, “Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down in a most delightful way.”
Euphemisms are also used outside of politics. For example, in my youth people bought used cars. Now people purchase pre-owned vehicles. People used to be fired. Now they are downsized. Secondhand clothing is now vintage.
Euphemisms are often used when naming laws to conceal the awful things within. One example of is calling anti-union laws “right to work” laws. These laws, not surprisingly, are part of the larger attack on unions, including educators’ unions. “Right to work” sounds good and some people probably mistakenly think these laws somehow address real obstacles to employment, such as discrimination. Which is the point of the name. The “Get Rid of Unions” law would not sound as good.
While there are many arguments for the “right to work” laws, one is that they will have an economic benefit for the state. If such laws were beneficial to workers, then it would be rational for workers to support them. Likewise, if they benefit employers, then it would be rational for employers to support them.
Interestingly, the premise is both true and false. By this, I do not mean that it is some sort of violation of the usual laws of truth. Rather, the claim is true for some and not true for others.
For employers, “right to work” laws can yield economic benefits, but precisely because these laws inflict economic costs on those doing the work. Darrel Minor, a professor of mathematics at Columbus State Community College did a 2012 analysis of “right to work” states relative to other states.
One focus was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each state. This is a measure of the goods and services produced in the state. Based on the 2009 data, the GDP of “right to work” states was $38,755. For other states, the GDP was $43, 899 which is a 13.3% difference. Interestingly, this indicates that the “right to work” laws can hurt both the employed and the employers— states with “right to work” laws are less productive than other states, thus undercutting arguments based on the claim that these laws enhance productivity. However, it is also worth noting that salaries in “right to work” states are 9.4% lower than those in other states. While this is bad for workers, it can be advantageous for employers who want to pay less for the same work.
Another focus of the analysis was on poverty rates. Eleven of the fifteen states with the highest poverty rates were “right to work” states. In contrast, nine of the eleven states with the lowest poverty rates were not “right to work” states. In 2008, 14.4% of the population of “right to work” states lived in poverty. In the other states, the number was 12.4%. As Minor noted, if the poverty level of the “right to work” states was extended to all 50 states, this would mean 3,670,000 more people living in poverty. This data suggests that “right to work” laws contribute to increased poverty. Minor also found that life expectancy in “right to work” states was lower If this data is accurate, then there are good reasons to oppose “right to work” laws. At least if you think it is bad for poverty to increase. For those who are pro-poverty, “right to work” laws are great.
To be fair and balanced, proponents of “right to work” laws point to different statistics and claim there is higher employment and lower costs of living in states with “right to work laws.” If these statistics are true, then the “right to work” laws might have some benefits in addition to the harms they seem to inflict and these should be weighed against each other. The weight given to each will depend on the values of those doing the assessment. So, for example, someone concerned with poverty and life expectancy would weigh these laws as more harmful than beneficial. Someone focused on the advantage of lower salaries in attracting businesses would see them as beneficial. Someone who enjoys the poverty of others would also favor such laws; sometimes the reward of a law is the suffering of other people.
It is reasonable to consider that the alleged effects (positive and negative) of “right to work” laws are not solely caused by the laws but are the result other factors. For example, perhaps “right to work” states also have inferior education and hence more poverty and lower wages. Also, which is weird but worth considering, some “right to work” states like the Free State of Florida get regularly hammered by hurricanes and these have enduring and surprising detrimental effects.
It is also worth considering the “right to work” laws are an effect rather than a cause. For example, a state with higher levels of poverty might pass such laws in the hopes of reducing poverty. It is also worth considering that the laws and their alleged effects are both the result of a third factor. States with extensive and strong business interests would tend to have higher employment rates and these business interests would tend to support “right to work” laws because of their perceived usefulness in combating the threat of unions. These should all be considered, although the simplest explanation is that the laws designed to hurt the unions that help workers end up hurting workers.