Right-To-Less
RIGHT-TO-WORK-FOR-LESS
A couple of years ago, then newly elected state representative Ron May, R-Colorado Springs, walked up to Robert Greene, president of the Colorado AFL-CIO, shook hands with him, and said that he hoped he could work with the AFL-CIO and labor in general. The next day May introduced Right-to-Work (RTW) legislation, which was ultimately defeated.
Fresh off of being chosen Colorado Business Legislator of the Year for his efforts in supporting pro-business issues, Ron May is at it again this year with HB 1206. However, not many in labor fall for his insincere pleasantries any longer. We realize we need to stem this in the legislature because of Governor Owens eagerness to sign any and all anti-worker legislation into law.
Basically, Right-to-Less (a more apt title for Right-to-Work) laws restrict unions from negotiating a security agreement, which affords them the ability to secure decent future agreements between the employer and employees and allows them to properly enforce current contracts.
With unions weakened, employers take full control. In this day-in-age of slashing worker wages and benefits this means less pay, less job security and less safety.
The numbers bear this out. Average compensation is about $4000 less in RTW states then in free bargaining states. In addition to this, the number of people without insurance, the amount of on the job fatalities and the overall poverty rate are all higher in RTW states. It truly is the Right-to-Less.
The argument most embraced by Right-to-Less advocates is that RTW laws help bring businesses to a state. Insight Research Corporation, a company that researches locations for business wishing to relocate, said that 90% of those businesses seeking to move use the absence of a RTW law as the rule to exclude states from its search.
However, this certainly doesn't seem to be the case in Right-to-Less free Colorado. Unemployment is down and subsequently, as article after article in the business sections of the newspapers state, company's have to sweeten their offers to prospective employees to get them in the door.
Perhaps the real reason behind RTW was alluded to in the January 1993 issue of the Monthly Labor Review in an article commenting on that era's recession and the efforts by business to reduce labor costs. "Many companies subcontracted work to nonunion shops, moved plants overseas, to Mexico, or to "right-to-work" states...", the BLS article said.
(It's interesting to note that Fantus Co., the nation's largest relocation consultant, holds that 90% do not look at the presence of RTW, but instead place 19 factors such as, tax incentives and worker availabilty, ahead of it.)
Do we really want our labor protections gutted by a Right-to-Less law advanced by business-backed legislators who strive to permit the profit-hungry corporations to continue feeding their bottom line at the expense of our rights? Or do we want the opportunity to negotiate fair wages and benefits without reprisal and keep the freedom we presently enjoy to battle corporate led attacks on our livlihood on both the governmental and workplace level?
Maybe the proponents confusion of RTW laws can be best summed up by Representative May himself. After testimony last year, May stated that his proposed Right-to-Less law would ensure that unions are "competitive".
Labor competes for all workers. Unions seek concessions from Big Business in an effort to help provide all working people access to jobs that offer fair wages, a safe work environment, and reasonable benefits. The UAW is competitve in the true sense, not the fabricated definition corporations use to explain our wages and benefits.
Governor Owens of Colorado can't wait to sink his fillet knife into the rights of the Colorado Worker.
Drawing by Union Brother Matt Huth.