JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — On the surface, "right to work" policy sounds like something beneficial to Missouri workers, but opponents say it's a misnomer. Contrary to what the name may indicate, the policy does not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work.

On August 7, the state's voters will decide on Proposition A, which would establish the state as a "right to work" state, but worker advocates want voters to understand the impact. Lindsey Baker, director of research with the Missouri Budget Project, explained.

"What that does is, it effectively limits the collective power of workers to negotiate for higher wages and more benefits by limiting union resources,” Baker said; “while at the same time, it still requires those unions to extend the benefits of those negotiated contracts to those who don't contribute financially."

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that wages in right-to-work states are 3 percent lower than those in states such as Missouri that don't have such laws - even when accounting for differences in cost of living and variances in industry. Supporters of right to work say the policy offers employees more access to jobs.

The institute and the Missouri Budget Project also assert that employees in right-to-work states have access to fewer benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans, since unions don't have the resources to advocate for those benefits. Baker said lower wages and fewer benefits have a statewide impact.

"Right-to-work legislation would further erode the middle class in Missouri by lowering wages and reducing access to affordable health insurance,” she said. “But there are also some pretty serious implications for Missouri's state budget. Lower wages in Missouri would reduce our already diminished tax base."

Baker added a reduced tax base would provide less funding for public services such as education and infrastructure. Nationwide, there are 28 right-to-work states.


get more stories like this via email

The National Labor Relations Board recently issued a rule change that may have wide-ranging impacts for workers and businesses.

The update to the joint employer rule would require parent companies to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employees even when using a staffing agency or subcontractor.

It also means franchisors and franchisees can both be held liable for unfair labor practices.

This replaces a Trump-era rule change that made it easier for companies to avoid a finding of joint-employer status.

Brian Petruska - general counsel with the mid-Atlantic regional organizing coalition of the Laborer's International Union of North America - said the rule change is a win for workers.

"It means that the employees' right to organize still is meaningful," said Petruska, "even in this modern world we live in with layers and layers of LLCs and corporations who are now defining the workspace."

The rule change now faces legal challenges including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed suit against the board in federal court.

In a statement on its website, the Chamber says the rule change will "create chaos and more legal confusion that will harm both employers and workers."

The NLRB rule establishes that two or more entities may be considered joint employers of a group of employees when more than one entity possesses the authority to control employees' essential terms and conditions of employment.

The board says this change is more in line with established common-law agency principles.

Petruska said he sees opposition to the updated rule coming from a number of industries including restaurants, construction and hotels.

He also said the franchise business model will no longer insulate the parent company from labor issues.

"Now," said Petruska, "the fact that they have that control may cause them to be embroiled in local labor disputes that the franchisees are having with their employees."

The new rule will go into effect next February.

States such as Minnesota have seen a tidal wave of union organizing amid public support to improve pay and workplace conditions.

However, labor leaders acknowledge the slow growth of membership, prompting questions about the movement's future.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says nationwide, the number of union jobs last year increased by nearly 2%, but the actual membership rate declined to 10.1%.

In a recent University of Minnesota panel discussion, Bernie Burnham -- president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO -- said the dynamics of organizing have changed, including smaller groups of employees pursuing contracts.

"Like in retail, there are a lot of places that use self-checkout," said Burnham. "So there are less workers in these stores and they're not going the traditional route, the old-school route of joining these bigger bodies that are the bigger unions."

Despite the differences, she suggests there's a lot of energy among the newer voices.

The experts added that corporations are taking a harder line on organizing and that under most laws, it's hard to enforce "anti-union" messaging.

Minnesota recently bolstered its laws, but some panelists noted most workers today don't come from a union household and could use more education and awareness.

Kathy Megarry, vice president for human resources and labor relations with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, suggested there are workers who want to see more value in the dues that are required.

"I have seen unions make actual political changes in terms of how they service their members," said Megarry, "put more money towards organizing, less money to servicing their members. That's a strategy. But then when you do not service your members well, I've seen that hurt some unions, not all."

She said that can be a hindrance for workers who sympathize with the cause but aren't ready to sign up for a union.

Meanwhile, the panelists said they see hope for more diversity within organized labor amid a shift from older white males leading organizing efforts.

They said having more women and people of color taking charge can potentially help with recruitment.

Pennsylvania needs more economic opportunities and a new report from the Keystone Research Center showed federal investments in climate and infrastructure projects would help grow a skilled construction workforce.

Diana Polson, senior policy analyst at the center, said the report revealed federal money would create thousands of trade jobs through expanding union construction apprenticeships leading to quality careers, as electricians, operating engineers, carpenters, and laborers.

"In Pennsylvania, for example, these apprenticeships train workers for jobs that pay more than most college-educated workers earn, and 61% more than the average worker in Pennsylvania," Polson pointed out. "Significantly, this training comes without any student debt."

Polson added Gov. Josh Shapiro wants to use 3% of the federal funds from recently signed climate and infrastructure laws to expand workforce development and apprenticeships. Shapiro's 2023-24 budget includes $6 million for the effort.

Polson noted President Joe Biden's Good Jobs Initiative seeks to embed job quality and equity incentives into the federal funding, to make sure apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeships benefit underserved communities. She called it a huge win all around, for the state, climate, for those communities, and taxpayers.

"We had shared this in the report, research has shown that for every dollar invested in apprenticeship $35 is returned to the government in higher tax collections, or reduced expenditures on public assistance or unemployment over the career of an apprentice," Polson emphasized. "These are huge returns on investments."

Keystone Research Center said the resources will lead to high-wage union construction careers. The center is holding a webinar today at 1 p.m. on construction apprenticeship programs in coal country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.