Regular Freedom@Work readers are already familiar with a growing body of evidence that points to Right to Work states' superior economic performance. A new fact sheet from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research further bolsters the economic case for worker freedom. The Institute's findings show that citizens in Right to Work states enjoyed faster growth and more purchasing power than their counterparts in forced unionism states over the past 10 years. Here are a few of the highlights:

Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2011 Update

Percentage Growth in Non-Farm Private-Sector Employees (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +0.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5.5%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  -3.3%
Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Percentage Real Growth in Private-Sector Employee Compensation (2000-2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 0.7%
(2000-2010) National Average . . . . .  . . . . 4.3%
BEA; BLS

Cost of Living-Adjusted Compensation Per Private-Sector Employee (2010)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $56,575
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . $55,420
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $55,896
Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC);
BEA; Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (BOC)

Right to Work is first and foremost about protecting employee freedom, but the economic performance of Right to Work states is a nice bonus. For more on the economic benefits of Right to Work laws, check out this op-ed from Foundation President Mark Mix in The Washington Examiner. 

As reported on the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Development Counselors International (DCI) recently asked corporate executives and representatives which states they thought were the best to locate for business. As the Examiner notes, America's job providers overwhelmingly favored states with Right to Work laws.

Of course this should come to no surprise. The results of DCI's survey largely mirrors that of CNBC 2010 "Best for Business" list, in which states with Right to Work protections for its workers were ranked seven of the top 10 and 10 of the top 15.

But despite the economic benefits business enjoy from Right to Work, the real beneficiaries are America's independent-minded workers. As the National Institute of Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has found time and again, workers and their families benefit immensely from Right to Work protections: from higher incomes and purchasing power to an increased likelihood of sending their children to college and having private, employment-based health insurance.

And most important of all, workers in Right to Work states get to exercise their fundamental freedom of association -- a quintessential American value supported by 80 percent of Americans and even 80 percent of union members.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix recently appeared on "The Willis Report" on the Fox News Channel to talk about the economic benefits of Right to Work laws, the costs of government-sector forced unionism, and the Foundation's legal aid to workers in South Carolina whose jobs are in jeopardy due to the Obama Labor Board's outrageous complaint against Boeing.

As Indiana's state legislators discuss the merits of passing Right to Work protections for Hoosier workers, a group of scholars released a study last week confirming (pdf) workers and their families in Right to Work states benefit from workplace freedom in a very tangible way. From a press release announcing their findings:

Improving the per-capita income of Indiana workers and creating more job opportunities for Hoosiers would be among the major benefits of Indiana becoming the 23rd state to pass a right-to-work (RTW) law, according to research released today by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. In addition, statewide voter polling results show Hoosiers favoring adoption of RTW by a 3-to-1 margin.

Dr. Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economist, and his colleagues report in the study (Right-to-Work and Indiana's Economic Future) that if Indiana had adopted RTW in 1977, per-capita income would have been $2,925 higher -- or $11,700 higher for a family of four - by 2008. Looking forward (projecting the same growth rate in the next 10 years after adjusting for inflation), passage of a RTW law in 2011 would raise per capita income by $968 -- or $3,872 for a family of four -- by 2021.

The scholars conclude that a Right to Work law would benefit workers with greater job growth and real personal income. These results mirror the thorough research conducted by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), which has found that families benefit from Right to Work laws with more job availability and higher expendable income. No wonder workers and their families are seeking greater workplace freedom, leaving forced unionism states in droves.

The primary goal of any Right to Work law is to safeguard employee rights by ensuring that no worker is forced to join or pay tribute to a union against his or her will. But it's nice to know that Right to Work states also enjoy faster growth and higher real purchasing power than their forced unionism counterparts. Here's an excerpt from the National Institute for Labor Relations Research's latest fact sheet on the issue:

Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income (1999-2009)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Forced-Unionism States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7%
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5%

Cost of Living-Adjusted Per Capita Disposable Personal Income (2009)

Right to Work States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35,543
Forced-Unionism States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33,389
National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,256

Click here for the rest of NILRR's findings. For more on the economic benefits of Right to Work laws, check out these blog posts. 

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has just released a report entitled "Tax-Paying Families Are Fleeing Forced-Unionism States" that details how and why families are moving from the 28 states that do not protect employees from forced unionism to the 22 states that do:

The IRS’s Statistical Information Service (SIS)... data for the Tax Filing Year 2008 show that a total of 1.523 million personal income tax filers were residing that year in a Right to Work state after residing somewhere else in the 50 states or the District of Columbia the previous year.  Meanwhile, a total of 1.338 million tax filers were residing in a Right to Work state in 2007, but filed from one of the other 49 states or the District of Columbia in
2008.

That means a net total of 185,000 tax filers moved from a forced-unionism state to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008.

The SIS also calculates and makes available to the public the aggregate adjusted gross incomes for migrating households in the year immediately following the move.  Personal income tax filers moving to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008 reported a total of $76.432 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $50,190 per filer.  Tax filers moving out of a Right to Work state during the same period reported a total of $61.773 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $46,165 per filer.

Both because of their substantial taxpayer losses due to net domestic out-migration, and because the taxpayers they gained earned significantly less per capita in 2008 than did the taxpayers they lost, forced-dues states lost a total of $14.659 billion in adjusted gross 2008 income in a single year.

The research report also highlights how those workers who flee forced unionism benefit with an adjusted gross income more than $4000 higher than their counterparts who moved from a pro-worker freedom state into a forced unionism state.

Of course, the most important aspect of why workers are fleeing to Right to Work states is because Right to Work laws give workers the needed protections to counter Big Labor's forced dues monopoly in the workplace.  Right to Work laws allow workers to keep their own hard-earned money if they find union dues payment to be objectionable or even just undesirable. Because of that right, Right to Work laws allow independent-minded workers the ability to better hold union bosses accountable for their actions.

To read the full NILRR report, click here.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) has released a telling study comparing Right to Work states with forced-unionism states in a variety of statistical categories. The statistics, provided by various governmental departments and agencies as well as respected non-profits, show the stunning economic and personal benefits families enjoy from their states' popular Right to Work laws.

The last five years of available data shows that workers in Right to Work states not only enjoy higher non-farm private-sector job growth (9.1% versus 3.6% from 2003-2008), but their real personal incomes are also growing faster (15.8% vs. 9.1% from 2003-2008) and they enjoy a higher disposable income ($34,878 vs. $32,811 in 2008) than their counterparts in forced unionism states.

Families in Right to Work states also benefit from lower taxes and are more likely to buy a home, send their children to college, and gain private, employment-based health insurance for parents and children alike.

While Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, NILRR's analysis shows that rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

To view the full details of NILRR's report entitled "Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power -- 2009 Update," click here.

Last week, the pro-worker think tank National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) released a Fact Sheet entitled “Negative Employment Growth Since November 2001” that details how highly-unionized states are suffering a "lost decade" in terms of private-sector job growth, while the least-unionized states have benefited from a nearly 1.5 million private-sector job growth:

As of 2001, the year of the last national recession prior to the current one, 9.7% of private-sector employees nationwide were under “exclusive” union representation. But in 16 states – Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,. Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin – 11.0% or more of private-sector workers were unionized.

From November 2001, the trough of the last recession, through June 2009, the most recent month for which non-preliminary, state-by-state payroll jobs data are available at this writing, these 16 heavily unionized states suffered an aggregate private-sector job loss of 990,000 – or 2.2% of their November 2001 total. Ten of the 16 states, or nearly two-thirds, had fewer private-sector jobs in June 2009 than they had had nearly eight years earlier.

...

The overall job losses in states with average private-sector unionization were far smaller than in heavily unionized states, and the 16 states which had private-sector unionization of 6.0% or less in 2001 actually gained jobs.

These low union-density states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia. They gained an aggregate of nearly 1.5 million private-sector jobs from November 2001 through June 2009. That constitutes a 4.5% increase.

Even with recent setbacks taken into account, fifteen of the 16, or 94%, of the lowest union-density states have experienced net job gains since November 2001.

Putting aside the inherent abuse of workers' rights, the data clearly indicates that job growth is negatively impacted by Big Labor's government-granted monopoly bargaining special privileges.  Yet NILRR's findings should come to no surprise to regular Freedom@Work readers, as we reported recently:

NILRR recently found an especially strong correlation between a state’s Right to Work status and its job growth, while employees in Right to Work states are benefiting from faster job growth and higher real purchasing power than their compulsory unionism counterparts.

History clearly demonstrates how union monopolists have hindered the creation of new jobs with costly operating procedures and wasteful work rules, especially during times of financial hardship.  Meanwhile, union bosses use their monopoly bargaining and other special forced-dues privileges to fill their political coffers while proliferating Big Government-mandated regulations on job providers and higher taxes on employers and employees alike. 

Recently the National Institute for Labor Relations Research released a new fact sheet that shows the numerous economic advantages associated with Right to Work states.

As the Fact Sheet details, Right to Work states have significant advantages in many areas including:

• Percentage Growth in Real Personal Income
• Growth in Real Manufacturing GDP
• Percentage Growth in Construction Employment
• Growth in Number of College Graduates (age 25+ with B.A.)
• Percentage Growth in Number of People/Children Covered by Private, Employer Based Health Insurance

And all those advantages are just icing on the cake. After all, the best reason for Right to Work protections is eliminating the injustice of firing employees for refusal to join or pay dues to a union.

That injustice has recognized by as wide a range of people as...

Thomas Jefferson who said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical," and

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor who said: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."

A few Right to Work-related updates from around the web:

1.) The Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog helpfully summarizes the corruption allegations surrounding Tyrone Freeman, head of California's SEIU chapter. What's worse, union mismanagement goes all the way to the top. According to the LA Times, SEIU national brass received word of Freeman's corrupt practices six years ago and still failed to act. (This is the same local union against which Foundation attorneys won a federal court settlement securing the return of almost $10 million in illegally seized forced union dues.)

Read the whole entry here.

2.) The New York Sun featured a great editorial yesterday on union bosses' half-hearted efforts at workplace "representation." Money quote:

But even as unions promote counterproductive economic policies, and push for legislation allowing them to essentially force more workers into their ranks, a look at union finances shows that many unions aren't looking after the members they already have — especially their retirement plans.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Union says prominently on its Web site that "Union Members Have Strong Retirement Plans."

But it turns out — as disclosed in unions' mandatory annual financial reports to the Labor Department — that the Sheet Metal workers' union pension plan is underfunded and so risks the future pensions promised to its members. Many other union pension plans are in similar straits.

This isn't an isolated incident, either. Check out the rest of the article for an in-depth look at the glaring disparity between union bosses' lavish salaries and the shortfalls facing rank-and-file workers' pension funds.

3.) Townhall.com has an article up on unions' efforts to ram the misleadingly-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" down workers' throats. The piece also mentions the Foundation's efforts to hold the SEIU accountable for a questionable political fundraising scheme:

In fact, alleged coercion for political gain is already occurring. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Department of Justice to investigate the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The basis for the request centers on this fact:

“The union adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in ‘local union funds’ equal to the ‘deficiency’ plus a 50% penalty.” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/28/08)

Can you name any other company or organization that could compel its membership to fund political organizations that rank and file membership may or may not agree with?

For more information on the Foundation's efforts to deter illegal union campaign fundraising, check out here, here, and here.