Unions vs. Right to Work States - my opinions

Since I'm diving into what is basically a political issue, I feel it necessary to mention a couple of things about myself as a matter of full disclosure.  I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  I vote for people and policies, not parties.  I am conservative on a lot of issues and liberal on many as well. 

Boeing, a company based in Washington State, has recently constructed a plant in South Carolina to assemble the new 787.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken exception to this based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state.  Right-to-work states like South Carolina and 21 others protect an individuals right to join a union, but ALSO protect their rights to NOT join a union if they so choose.  In Washington State, and every other state that isn't a right-to-work state, if you want to work at the Boeing plant, you MUST join the union.  If the NLRB is successful in their complaint against Boeing, the company could be required to shut down the South Carolina plant and move its operation into Washington. 

I won't dive into the history of unions and why they were important at one time or another.  If you're curious how we came to have unions in our country and why they still exist in the form they do in 28 states, just read up on the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act.  They are the two pieces of legislation that created the NLRB and collective bargaining for better or worse.

As I said before, compulsory unionism exists in 28 states while 22 states have used a decades-old political compromise to curb that compulsion with right-to-work laws.  These 22 states are primarily in the south and middle America.  The entire west coast and northeast fall into the forced-unionism category.  When you compare the 22 right-to-work states to the remaining 28, you find some interesting statistics.  From 1999 to 2009, the aggregate all-industry GDP for the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2%, nearly 40% more than the other 28 states as a group.  From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3% in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group.  Young adults are also migrating to right-to-work states.  From 1999 to 2009, there were 20% more 25-35 year-olds in right-to-work states compared to a 3.3% increase in the other 28.

There is a very telling correlation between these statistics and the fiscal health of states in our current economy.  Look at the states with the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances and the highest default risks - California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin - they all have two things in common:  heavy tax burdens and forced unionization, especially of their government workforces.  If the current economic state isn't enough for you, you can also look at job growth.  Texas usually leads the way in "anti-union" legislation.  Of all the new private sector jobs created in the United States in the last two years, 43% were created in Texas.  Let me repeat that number - 43%  In fact, in the battle to survive one of the worst economic periods in our countries history, Texas won in a first round TKO.  They have done it as a right-to-work state with no state income tax and a business friendly tax structure while maintaining an eight billion dollar "rainy day fund" (it also helps to have a warm climate year round and an abundance of natural resources, as well as it's own power grid and no housing bubble).

President Obama and the liberal side of the legislature steadfastly support forced unionization.  That is not a surprise nor anything new - unions make massive contributions to the Democratic party and are primarily blue states.  That said, when trying to deal with a massive deficit and high unemployment, I would recommend to the President and his cohorts to look at the economic models from states that WORK, instead of trying to run the country with the same policies as states that are broke.  That means finally doing the right thing and staying out of state business with regards to unionization.  If Washington state wants to maintain their forced unionization laws, that is their right.  However, if Boeing wants to build a new plant in a right-to-work state, that is their right as well.  The NLRB claims that Boeing is only heading to South Carolina to avoid a union workforce.  Of course they are!  But why shouldn't they.  How many billions did the last two strikes by their workers in Everett, WA cost them.

Why is the outcome of this case so important to the future of the US economy?  If Boeing were to be forced to close its South Carolina plant, what do you think the future moves of their company and others will be?  Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Shell, etc, aren't going to just roll over and build new facilities in states that force them to deal with high taxes and forced unionization.  Without the option to move to states that allow for a competitive business environment, these companies will simply build new facilities in foreign countries where the NLRB and the federal government can't touch them or tell them what they can and can't do.

This all seems very simple and obvious to me.  That said, I was fascinated by the response a few months back in Wisconsin when the Republican governor and legislature attempted to take the first steps towards taking the state away from the forced-union model.  The senate Democrats fled the state and the capitol was overrun by activists screaming at the top of their lungs against legislation that they didn't have a clue about (just listen to some of their interviews).  I can still vividly remember Ed Shultz from MSNBC talking about the "attack on the American worker".  I don't think these people are stupid, I just think they're ignorant.  They don't know any better.  They are convinced that they will be worse off without their unions because that's all they've known (Ed Shultz is just an idiot).

I decided to do a little research.  I compared the unionized nurse force in Minnesota with the non-unionized nurses in Texas.  I chose this group because the nurses in Minnesota were threatening to strike at the time.  What I discovered was that nurses in Texas make more money, have a much lower patient to nurse ratio, and have a much lower cost-of-living than their Minnesota counterparts.  So what does forced unionization get you?  Union dues is the only thing I can come up with.

If 28 states want to remain is the economic "dark ages" by repeating the mistakes that put them there in the first place, that's fine with me - just don't let the federal government drag the other 22 down with them by forcing companies to seek opportunities abroad.