The Star Tribune's Feb. 19 editorial on "right to work" was ill-founded and out of step with the interests of Minnesotans ("'Right to work' is wrong for state"). From the start, the Editorial Board characterizes the proposed constitutional amendment on right to work as being anti-union. This simply isn't true. The right-to-work amendment provides an employee the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union.
I'm surprised by the assertion that forcing workers to join a union in a closed shop benefits Minnesota's workforce. On the contrary, our firm's research with voters across the state indicates that only a minority find value in unions.
Only 48 percent of union members believe unions give them their money's worth from the dues they pay. The idea that unions use all worker dues to negotiate favorably on all employees' behalf flies in the face of the facts.
What about the millions of dollars the unions will spend to fight for various political positions this election season? How does that benefit union workers? The fact is that unions are using a sizable percentage of their largess for self-preservation; 48 percent of voters believe unions are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than in bringing about needed change.
The editorial's attempt to justify the benefits of a strong union presence is filled with holes. One cannot assume causation from correlation, and yet that's exactly what the editorial attempts to do. The suggestion that strong unionization has led Minnesota to have a lower unemployment rate than right-to-work states or a higher median household income is spurious.
How many other variables might impact this data? How about the fact that only 16 percent of voters even belong to unions? Is it possible that our economy actually might be better off if we didn't force workers to join unions?
The biggest argument made in the editorial is that a right-to-work amendment would open the door for workers to "free-ride" on the negotiating prowess of the unions. But because fewer than half of union workers believe unions give them their money's worth for the dues they pay, this argument sounds more like a union trying to defend the status quo to maintain membership.
With a right-to-work law, it appears that large numbers of union workers would leave the union. Furthermore, I believe in the honesty and integrity of Minnesota's workers. Do you really think they would be so dishonorable as to seek a benefit and not pay a fair price for it?
