One of the more common claims of those in favour of right-to-work laws is that they will create jobs and spur economic growth. The Ontario Conservatives’ white paper states that union choice laws will attract businesses and expand the economy. The Ontario Conservatives’ white paper also claims that over a 10 year period (2001 to 2010) states with right-to-work laws experienced 11 percent more economic growth than states without right-to-work laws. These claims mirror those proposed by academic supporters of right-to-work laws. For example, Richard Vedder, an American economist, proposes that between 1980 and 2010 states with right-to-work laws saw their GDP grow by 166.06 percent, whereas non-right-to-work states only saw their GDP grow
…show more content…
Furthermore, in the same period, there was a flocking of corporations from non-right-to-work states to right-to-work states; the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in right-to-work states more than doubled, from 74 to 157. On the surface these numbers are very impressive and would constitute a strong case for the passage of right-to-work laws. However, these numbers are not necessarily the result of right-to-work laws. Right-to-work laws are not passed in a vacuum. Thomas Holmes identified numerous factors that could help explain the disparity in economic growth between right-to-work states and non-right-to-work states. Holmes points out that right-to-work states were, historically speaking, agriculturally focused, and thus the economic growth can be partially explained by the movement of workers from agriculture to manufacturing (a concept that was discussed earlier when dealing with the Reed article). More importantly, right-to-work states almost always pass pro-business legislation like tax breaks, incentives, and less regulations to accompany the right-to-work legislation. For example, …show more content…
One of these non-economic factors that needs to be considered is workplace safety. In the United States workplace safety seems to be pretty well regulated by the government, with OSHA, and various other federal and state laws. However, despite the coverage provided by the regulatory standards regime, unions still play a big role. For example, 67 percent of unionized construction workers said they were regularly informed on workplace safety conditions; only 47 percent of non-union construction workers could say the same. 84 percent of unionized construction workers said they received safety training when they were hired; again, less than 50 percent of non-unionized construction workers said the same. Finally, 75 percent of unionized construction workers reported that there were regular job safety meetings in their workplace; only 48 percent of non-unionized construction workers could report the same. While there is no direct link between right-to-work laws and construction fatalities, there does seem to be a link between union density and construction fatalities. Every 1 percent increase in union density is associated with a 0.58 percent decrease in construction fatalities; however, this effect is diminished in states with right-to-work laws. It was discussed above that right-to-work
Furthermore, in the same period, there was a flocking of corporations from non-right-to-work states to right-to-work states; the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in right-to-work states more than doubled, from 74 to 157. On the surface these numbers are very impressive and would constitute a strong case for the passage of right-to-work laws. However, these numbers are not necessarily the result of right-to-work laws. Right-to-work laws are not passed in a vacuum. Thomas Holmes identified numerous factors that could help explain the disparity in economic growth between right-to-work states and non-right-to-work states. Holmes points out that right-to-work states were, historically speaking, agriculturally focused, and thus the economic growth can be partially explained by the movement of workers from agriculture to manufacturing (a concept that was discussed earlier when dealing with the Reed article). More importantly, right-to-work states almost always pass pro-business legislation like tax breaks, incentives, and less regulations to accompany the right-to-work legislation. For example, …show more content…
One of these non-economic factors that needs to be considered is workplace safety. In the United States workplace safety seems to be pretty well regulated by the government, with OSHA, and various other federal and state laws. However, despite the coverage provided by the regulatory standards regime, unions still play a big role. For example, 67 percent of unionized construction workers said they were regularly informed on workplace safety conditions; only 47 percent of non-union construction workers could say the same. 84 percent of unionized construction workers said they received safety training when they were hired; again, less than 50 percent of non-unionized construction workers said the same. Finally, 75 percent of unionized construction workers reported that there were regular job safety meetings in their workplace; only 48 percent of non-unionized construction workers could report the same. While there is no direct link between right-to-work laws and construction fatalities, there does seem to be a link between union density and construction fatalities. Every 1 percent increase in union density is associated with a 0.58 percent decrease in construction fatalities; however, this effect is diminished in states with right-to-work laws. It was discussed above that right-to-work