Here’s the reality:

So-called Right-to-Work laws mean only one thing: Union (income) Security agreements that give unions the ability to have workers fired for refusing to pay union dues (or fees) are illegal. That is all.

Nevertheless, with teeth gnashing and fists flying, union bosses and their union-bought politicians insist that Right-to-Work laws mean Right-to-Work for less.

While it makes for a great sound byte, the union claim requires a deeper examination. In doing so, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy blows away the unions’ sound byte:

Scores of right-to-work critics ranging from politicians to economists have cited lower per-capita incomes in right-to-work states as why the new law is not good for Michigan.

However, not factoring in cost-of-living exposes a flaw in that analysis, said Mackinac Center for Public Policy Fiscal Analyst James Hohman. Once that is considered, Hohman said the per-capita income is higher in right-to-work states than non-right-to-work states.

For example, Texas per-capita income was $37,098 but would have a purchasing power of $49,700 in the state of New York in 2007, according to Hohman’s analysis. New York’s per-capita income was $47,852.

Hohman found that in terms of Michigan dollars in 2000, right-to-work states had 4.1 percent higher per-capita personal incomes than non-right-to-work states when factoring in cost of living. Michigan was considered a non-right-to-work state because the law was passed in late December 2012. Hohman said the right-work-states didn’t surpass non-right-to-work states until 2003. [Emphasis added.]

It is shocking not surprising that union bosses would stoop to such levels in order to maintain the amount of money coming into their cofferes that forced unionism brings in Non-Right-to-Work states.

Related: Facts On Right to Work vs. Forced Unionization States.
____________________

"Truth isn't mean. It's truth."
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Get LUR updates on Twitter.