Historical signed opinion by Peggy Peters, October 1978. Legal interpretations, statistics and arguments are the original author’s assertions and have not been independently updated or verified.
On November 7, 1978, the people of Missouri will make a crucial decision concerning the future of trade unions and the overall welfare of workers in the state. They will be called to vote upon the controversial “Right to Work” amendment. This amendment to Article I of the Constitution of Missouri is known as Section 29(A) which states “That no person shall be deprived of the right and freedom to work at his chosen occupation for any employer because of membership or non-membership in any labor organization, or because of payment or non-payment of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to any labor organization; that any contract which contravenes this right is illegal and void.”
In other words, labor unions will be illegal and all people now working under union negotiated contracts will have lost their right to collective bargaining and the right to strike against their employers. Unions are the working people’s strength and the solidarity of the union is the only weapon available. Employers realize this and constantly try to weaken the union through “strike breaking” methods such as those recently used at Hussman Refrigeration.
A “Right to Work” law sounds good when it is stated as such. Sure, every one should have the right to work, but just what does “Right to Work” mean to the people of the states which have such a law?
According to the 1977 United States Statistical Abstract, people who live in “Right-to Work” states are losing in every way, from wages earned to the welfare of their children.
Beginning with wages, which is probably of the most importance to most workers, production workers in RTW states earn less and if they lose their jobs or are temporarily laid off they receive less unemployment compensation than their fellow workers in non-RTW states. Furthermore only 55% of the RTW states have minimum wage laws as compared to 99% of the non-RTW states. All non-RTW states have Fair Employment Practice laws while only 40% of RTW states do. If non-union workers believe that the RTW law has nothing to do with them and their wages, they must realize that the wages derived by unions through collective bargaining for their members sets the precedent for all wages in that area. As it is, Union members generally make higher wages than non-union members, but non-union members would be far worse off without unions leading the way. All working people benefit from unions.
Taxes also are a concern of many voters. In RTW states corporations pay less taxes thus causing the majority of the tax burden to fall upon the working class.
Women in RTW states generally get paid less than men because only 60% of the RTW states have equal pay laws whereas 84% of non-RTW states have such laws. Of further interest to advocates of equal rights only 40% RTW states have approved the Equal Rights amendment — 90% of non-RTW have.
As previously mentioned, RTW affects even the education of children since workers making less and already being overtaxed can’t afford to pay more taxes for adequate schools. Infant death rate is higher in RTW states since there are fewer doctors per population. Again this is a throw-back to low wages. And more families are living in poverty in RTW states than in other states.
Again, these are statistics and solid arguments against a Right to Work law in Missouri. There are also arguments for RTW. The big argument of RTW supporters is that Missouri is losing jobs to RTW states. This is true and a good point but this can only happen if the work force is willing to work for less. Employees do not benefit from RTW, big business does. Why should big business continue to make high profits if the workers don’t? RTW may be sold as a way to curtail inflation, but why at the expense of the workers? Also, there is no proof that prices in RTW states are any lower than anywhere else. Why work for less and still pay high prices?
Labor unions are not the only reason that companies leave one state for another. Before a company decides to relocate many things must be considered. Costs such as taxes, transportation of raw materials in and products out and utility rates enter into the final decision. Moving a company from one state to another is also expensive since the company has already invested their capital. Some states gain manufacturing companies and jobs due to laws which eliminate manufacturing machines and equipment from property tax. Again the tax burden falls on the tax payer and big business gains another edge.
Unemployment is also on the side of the Right to Work advocates.
Unemployment is not necessary. There are many jobs that could be filled. Better housing is needed but there are construction workers out of work. Decent hospitals and health care are needed but many hospitals are closed and their workers laid off. Education of our children is inadequate and classrooms are over crowded. Why? Because people are only allowed to work if they can produce profits for big business.
In a newsletter United Auto Workers President Douglas Fraser stated that big business is waging a “one-sided class war” against “working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the very young and the very old …” that “the leaders of industry, commerce and finance … have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing during a past period of growth and progress.” The foundation of the pact was “that when ever things got bad enough for a segment of society, the business elite ‘gave’ a little bit” but “that ‘give’ -usually came only after a sustained struggle such as that waged by the labor movement in the 1930s and the civil rights movement in the 1960s.”
Laborers (and that includes most of us) are again in the midst of a struggle. The struggle for the right of the working class to survive against the power of big business. The Right to Work Amendment must be defeated in November in order for this to happen.
Originally published in The Paper, October 1978.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Archival transcription note: Claim that unions would become illegal and the listed percentages are preserved as the source’s assertions; source citations are incomplete and not independently verified.
Original source: SD_Times1978_10.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
