Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed "right-to-work" legislation into law today after a contentious few days, ongoing protests, and vows from Democratic lawmakers and union supporters to overturn the new laws at the first opportunity.
The bills ban mandatory union membership as a condition of employment in Michigan. Republicans, who used their supermajority in the state congress to push through the changes, say they are protecting employee choice.
Democrats, meanwhile, say the bills are a thinly-veiled attempt to weaken unions and end collective bargaining agreements that protect employee wages and benefits.
Who's right?
According to the Economic Policy Institute, "right-to-work" laws don't increase employment rates like Republicans say they do.
"The history of right-to-work studies has a clear trajectory," said the EPI study. "The more scholars are able to hold "all other things" equal, the more it becomes clear that these laws have little or no positive impact on a state's job growth. The most recent and most methodologically rigorous studies conclude that the policy has no statistically significant impact whatsoever."
This is corroborated by Hofstra University professor Lonnie Stevans.
According to the United States Department of Labor, states that have passed "right-to-work" legislation have lower median incomes than states that still allow collective bargaining.
In 2011, the average worker in "right-to-work" states made $15.31 per hour, while the average worker in collective bargaining states made over a dollar and a half more per hour, $16.89 per hour.
The average middle school teacher salary (a position that usually involves union membership) in RTW states was $49,306 per year--$6,500 less than the $55,863 salary earned by the average middle school teacher in states with collective bargaining.
At the same time, the average computer technician in RTW states also made $4,300 less each year than their counterpart in collective bargaining states, suggesting that the wage benefits in collective bargaining states extend to other residents of the state and are not restricted solely to union members.
However, RTW states did have a slightly lower unemployment rate in 2012 than collective bargaining states, 6.9 percent to 7.5 percent.
So while collective bargaining seems better for people with jobs, even those not in a union, RTW laws may benefit people who are unemployed and looking for work.
However, the point may be moot, as young workers and voters support unions and collective bargaining at lower rates than their older peers, likely part of a snowball effect as the power of unions has waned over the years.
While younger voters tend to be more liberal and support policies like higher wages, universal health care and worker protections, they see them as rights that should be guaranteed by the federal government, similar to the expansion of healthcare by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
As more states become "right-to-work," even people who support the values and goals of unions may no longer support them.