Advanced Search
Graph of the Day: Oklahoma After Right-to-Work
It's difficult to prove much of anything when it comes to right-to-work laws. Most states that have such laws have had them for decades, making it hard to figure out what effects the laws have. Just about the only available contemporary example of a new right-to-work law that can give us any data is Oklahoma, which implemented a right-to-work law in late September of 2001.
Let's see how that worked out for them.
(Data from Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The blue line on top is the total number of jobs in Minnesota. The red line is the total number of jobs in Oklahoma. The relative position of the two lines isn't too important; Minnesota has more people, so it has more jobs.
What is interesting is how quickly each line changes. In particular, Oklahoma's job count after right-to-work flattens out. Minnesota's does, too, in part because we'd all started to weather the first Bush recession. The point to remember is that right-to-work didn't actually increase Oklahoma's number of jobs in any meaningful way.
There are plenty of other factors that affect jobs in a state beyond right-to-work, of course. That's kind of the point of this graph – the claims of right-to-work proponents that the law would drive up employment don't actually have a basis in reality.
There will be plenty of graphs thrown around on both sides of this debate as the legislative session proceeds. Just remember that the burden of proof is on those advocating for right-to-work. They're the ones claiming that it will increase jobs, so they're the ones that should offer the data to support that claim. Unfortunately for them, the real data don't give them much to work with. And we can always come back to the question, “What about Oklahoma?”
For more on this issue, see "Oklahoma Revisited"
Posted in Economic Development | Related Topics: Job Growth Union Working / Middle Class Issues Graphs
17 Comments
February 13, 2012 at 11:06 am
Jamie,
Good points on the framing of the issue. You might want to check out John’s journal from late last week that hits on similar points, and be sure to check out tomorrow’s Tuesday Talk seeking suggestions for other terms to use.
Thanks again for engaging on this—it’s subtle but important.
February 13, 2012 at 10:30 am
RTW would be the end on MN as we know it. I will leave the state, if we flip to right to work. It will be too painful to watch, sort of like Whitney after she found Bobby Brown.
February 11, 2012 at 7:20 pm
It’s important for us not to use Republican marketing/propaganda language in discussing this issue (and others). “Right-to-work” should never be written without at least putting quotation marks around it, and it should never be spoken without being preceded by “so-called.” Language can be a very powerful thing and Republicans are really good at getting the news media and the rest of us to use THEIR language. Their language that is carefully crafted to influence opinion and behavior all by itself. An uninformed voter (of which there are MANY) sees or hears “right to work” or “freedom to work” and they think “how can that be a bad thing?” And then they vote for the amendment to the state constitution.
I’m surprised that MN 2020 doesn’t seem to know this. We need to craft a NEUTRAL term for this effort to destroy unions and the middle class.
February 11, 2012 at 7:04 pm
There are other points to be made in the argument, but this graph just answers the claim that Republicans are making about so-called “right-to-work” states creating more jobs. Their claim is bogus of course.
February 10, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I’ve spent my first career in an union and my second without. I’m convinced of the need for unions but with a role that’s a little different than many. The model I like is similar to our regional Boilermaker’s union. For them, the employer pays a fee to the union that covers their benefits and the employee’s union manages the money. So the Boilermaker can change employers and not lose his/her healthcare or retirement benefits. And of course union workers are likely to have a contract with work rules. That alone will go a long way to assuring all workers are treated fairly. I see the above even more important then bargaining for higher wages.
February 10, 2012 at 10:39 am
Well said Mr. J. This is why President Theodore Roosevelt said we had to have the “Square Deal.” This is why President Franklin Roosevelt came up with the “New Deal.” That’s both a Republican and Democrat, I point out.
This is why we need a “Fair Deal” now, to redress the excesses that brought our great country its biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.
The balance of power got tipped too far, and we’re all paying the price now. That “Fair Deal” includes unions as part of maintaining a healthy balance of power.
Thanks again for your eloquent words.
February 10, 2012 at 9:33 am
The real question boils down to economics and statistics. Since the Reagan crackdown on unions in the 1980’s, we have seen real wages for working people decline. As a matter of fact, if you overlay a graph of union membership in the United States with real incomes for working class families, you will find that they are almost identical.
I have friends who tell me that unions were needed once, when they fought for the 40-hour week and against child labor, but that they have outlived their usefulness now. I am an economic historian by trade, and I can find absolutely no evidence of that. Employers will always pay as little as possible for labor, it is in their economic interest to do so. In every field where unions have been shut out or sufficiently weakened, real wages and working conditions have declined. Only strong unions can provide protection for middle class families.
I am not vilifying capitalism or business owners, I have owned my own business for more than 10 years, but for capitalism to work for both, employers and working families, there has to be a level playing field. If one side has all the power, power will be abused. If I can take your livelihood away and you have no recourse, I have power, not only over your work life, but over your family life and your children’s futures. I believe that this power needs to be balanced somehow, and organized workers seem to be the only balancing power I have ever seen work in the real world.
February 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Don’t get lost in all the statistics and economic arguments that both sides of the right-to-work debate bring to the table. In the end, this issue centers on one basic principle:
http://libertymcg.com/2012/02/01/within-right-to-work-one-simple-and-undeniable-principle/
February 9, 2012 at 1:11 pm
A more useful contrast and comparison would be how the median Minnesota manufacturing wage compares with the national average. The last numbers I saw showed the state lagging the rest of the country. It’s only the relatively small number of exceptionally well paying metro jobs that raise the state’s average and make us look good.
February 9, 2012 at 11:26 am
Having come to Minnesota from Texas in 1940
I have been able to make a lot of job
comparison over the years in visiting back there with family. There were a number of teachers in my family and the pay and benefits were so different. It wasn’t because the cost of living was cheaper because we paid more for food and other necessities there. I know that here in Minnesota I made twice as much for working a 42 hour week as I did for a six day per week 54 hour job. Being a neighbor to Mexico cheap labor was readily available.I know that was a lot of years ago but Texas always and always will be a Right to Work State. I certainly hope Minnesota doesn’t take that step down hill.
February 9, 2012 at 10:45 am
While this graph doesn’t tell the whole story, it does debunk the primary claim for RTW (I prefer to call it “Right To Freeload”) that it creates jobs.
Even if there was a significant increase in jobs, that would have to be tempered by the impact on wages. Lower wages can make it impossible to get by on the salary from one job so additional jobs at lower wages can be of no value to workers.
February 9, 2012 at 10:20 am
Exceptional. Thanks. If you compare directly between occupations, such as electricians, the RTW states compare even worse. Great work.
February 9, 2012 at 9:14 am
I agree with Nate - useless graph. It looks like a Heritage Center report. What about wages, healthcare, safety, vacation, pensions, etc. Right-to-work states pay on average $5500 less than non-rtw states, not counting huge benefit and safety differences. I cannot understand why Mn 2020 would promote rtw with a smokescreen graph.
This is serious legislation, so it must be properly vetted.
I have worked with rtw workers. They hate it.
February 9, 2012 at 8:58 am
This is a complicated issue, finding “best analysis” is not easy. Finding rigorous analysis in a sea of opinion is like looking for a needle in a haystack (in the internet era.) There is so much mere opinion masquerading as fact. While I support everyone’s right to their own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own “facts!” Here’s the link to the best R-T-W scientific analysis I could find:
<http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf>
It’s 13 pages and mathematical methodology and analysis aren’t going to make for necessarily exciting and riveting reading. It is important to know that rigorous scientific methods were used. So? (On page 8) here are some of the findings:
- on average, pay is 3.2% less in a so-called “right to work” state
- on average, health care benefits are 2.6% less in a “right to work” state
- on average, pensions get 4.8% less in a “right to work” state
This is whether you belong to a union, or not. Yes, the compensation for everyone is driven down, even if you don’t belong to a union. So YOU will be affected if “RTW” passes here in MN. This paper is nearly a year old, so there is no excuse for our legislators not to “know.” It’s also had all that time to hold up (well) to tough scrutiny. There is one inescapable conclusion: the so-called “right to work” laws do seem to ensure the right-to-work-FOR-LESS compensation, without actually showing a real increase in employment… as this Oklahoma graphical example shows.
Bottom line: for “Capital?” This is an upside with little immediate downside, it just further increases their power to unilaterally dictate terms…and for “Labor” it’s a downside with little upside, for workers to just get less with no other significant improvement.
This is the real definition of “class warfare” and Warren Buffet is right, “his class” has been winning. This is just one clear example of the “how.” Minnesota is next? Your legislator needs to hear from you..
February 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
This isn’t an especially useful graph. How does employment compare to the country as a whole? To neighboring states? How about average wages? It may actually be that OK fared better than neighboring states in terms of number employed, but lost ground in terms of average salary and benefits. That’s what de-unionization would logically affect, not total employment but quality of employment.
Dean says:
February 13, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I don’t know if that RTW amendment will pass in MN but it wouldn’t surprise me if it did. The state has a strong Religious Right group that will vote for anything the Republicans propose. And that might be enough to tip the balance. If the people with union jobs all voted with the Dems, it would help - but that’s not the case. We might have as many as a quarter of the teachers voting with the party opposite.