For the umpteenth time: No, wages won't collapse.

If there is a challenge in defending the right-to-work concept, it isn't researching or writing, it's boredom. Union officials continue to tell the same stories. After a while the material you have to read through and rebut gets repetitive.

For instance, here's retired AFL-CIO Program Manager John Kreucher in the The Jackson Citizen Patriot:

By undermining workers’ rights, this unfair scheme would give even more profits to greedy CEOs at the expense of our jobs, our retirement security and our kids’ future.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

A recent study by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute found that workers in right-to-work states have a lower standard of living, make an average of $1,500 less per year and go without health insurance more frequently...A better name for this legislation would be “right to work for less.”

Greedy CEOs, hapless workers, yadda-yadda-yadda. And "right to work for less" —  real original.

OK, as far as the loss of wages goes, here's the data from Oklahoma:

(Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis)

See that big drop in wages starting in 2001 when Oklahoma enacted a right-to-work law? Yeah, neither do I. Such is the terror that awaits Michigan workers when they are no longer forced to pay union dues and agencies fees in order to keep a job — steadily rising wages. Oh the humanity!

If there's one thing that Michigan has to fear from a right-to-work campaign, it's boredom due to a union establishment that cannot come up with a real threat or even an original epithet, but can be counted on to repeat the same old rhetoric, over and over and over...

Related Articles:

Americans are Moving to Right-to-Work States

West Virginia House Vote Could Tip National Scale on Right-to-Work

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Pivotal Right-to-Work Case

Don’t Limit Workers’ Right to Work

That’s What We Said

Right-to-Work Makes Unions Stronger

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites