 Right to Work gives workers freedom not to pay fees to a union they don’t
support. This means that in Right-to-Work states, workers can’t be fired for
choosing not to join or pay money to a union.
In Illinois, if a collective bargaining agreement at a unionized workplace
requires workers to pay fees to the union to keep their jobs, they must do so –
except in the village of Lincolnshire, which voted Dec. 14, 2015, to become the
first Illinois municipality to protect worker freedom by enacting a local
Right-to-Work ordinance.
But the Illinois Senate passed a bill on April 27 that is intended to quash
local Right to Work in Illinois. Senate Bill 1905, introduced by state Sen. Ira
Silverstein, D-Chicago, would create the “Collective Bargaining Freedom Act,”
which would prohibit local governments in Illinois from passing or enforcing
local Right-to-Work measures. Having passed the Senate, the bill is now in the
Illinois House of Representatives.
Under SB 1905, the General Assembly reserves for itself alone the “authority to
enact any legislation” that by design or in practice “prohibits, … tends to
restrict, or regulates in any manner” the use of so-called “union security
agreements” between an employer and a labor union. The bill further bars local
governments from “enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any local law” that “prohibits, …
tends to restrict, or regulates” the use of such union security agreements.
“Union security agreements” are collective bargaining agreements that require
employees to pay fees to a union as a condition of obtaining or keeping their
jobs. Under these agreements, even employees who decline to join the union have
to pay a so-called “agency fee” to the union.
SB 1905 is designed to bring Lincolnshire’s ordinance – and potential worker
freedom measures in other municipalities – to an abrupt end. This would make
Illinois even less competitive for jobs and economic growth, especially compared
with neighboring states, all of which have enacted Right to Work.
Local Right to Work in Illinois
Right-to-Work laws allow workers in unionized workplaces to choose whether to
support the union. They don’t prohibit unions from existing or representing
workers; they just prevent workers from being forced to join or pay money to a
union to keep their jobs.
Twenty-eight states – including all of Illinois’ neighbors – have statewide
Right to Work. Illinois does not have a statewide Right-to-Work law, but this
policy has been adopted at the municipal level by the Lincolnshire Village
Board. Lincolnshire passed Right to Work under the village’s home rule authority
in December 2015.
Soon after Lincolnshire passed its ordinance, though, unions sued the village in
federal court, arguing that federal law only allows Right-to-Work laws to be
enacted on a statewide basis, not locally. The trial court agreed with the
unions, and the case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the only other federal
appeals court to address this issue, ruled in 2016 that federal law does not
prohibit local Right-to-Work laws.
Lincolnshire is waiting for the courts to resolve the matter before enforcing
its Right-to-Work ordinance. If the courts uphold Lincolnshire’s measure, other
local governments in Illinois would likely consider passing Right-to-Work
ordinances to bolster the competitiveness of their communities for jobs and
businesses.
Forced unionization puts Illinois at a disadvantage for jobs, encourages
out-migration
SB 1905 could broaden forced unionization in Illinois. This isn’t fair to
individual workers, and it creates a less friendly jobs climate for the state as
a whole.
Over the last 25 years, Right-to-Work states have had double the jobs growth
rate of forced-unionization states like Illinois. Illinois has the worst jobs
growth in the region, and since February, when Missouri became the 28th state to
enact statewide Right to Work, the Land of Lincoln has been surrounded by
Right-to-Work states with better jobs climates.
[to top of second column] |
Right-to-Work states
Although Iowa has had a Right-to-Work law since 1947, Right to Work
started taking hold across the region in 2012, when then-Gov. Mitch
Daniels signed Right to Work into law for Indiana. Michigan followed
suit in 2013, followed by Wisconsin (2015), Kentucky (2017) and
Missouri (2017).
Since 2012, states across the region have increased competition
for middle-class jobs and industrial investment; Illinois, despite
having the worst jobs growth in the region, has made no improvements
to its industrial regulations. And this has hit manufacturing
especially hard. Since July 2012, Illinois has lost 16,700
manufacturing jobs, while Indiana has added 44,100. During this
time, Michigan has added 65,800 manufacturing jobs; Wisconsin has
added 11,500; Kentucky has added 27,000; and Missouri has added
10,100 production jobs. Iowa had a slight drop of 200 manufacturing
jobs over this period.
Not only has Illinois’ forced unionization corresponded with the
state’s lackluster economic performance, but it has not even
succeeded at bolstering union membership. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics recently released a report on union membership by state.
The report showed that in 2016, union membership fell by 35,000 in
Illinois, compared with increases of 21,000 in Indiana, 3,000 in
Kentucky, and 32,000 in Missouri. While union membership is
declining in many places – Michigan’s union membership decreased by
15,000; Wisconsin’s fell by 4,000; and Iowa’s dropped by 9,000 over
the past year – Illinois’ experience shows that private sector
unions are especially unlikely to grow amid weak industrial
investment and diminished demand for labor.
Evidence suggests that companies consider the Right-to-Work status
of states when deciding on industrial expansions: Two-thirds of
global chief financial officers surveyed by CNBC said a
Right-to-Work law is either “important” or “very important” when
they decide where to grow their businesses. This puts Illinois
workers at a severe disadvantage for attracting job-creating
investments. Over 1,100 businesses have black-listed Illinois
because it is not a Right-to-Work state, according to Jim Schultz,
the former director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity.
Further stalling Illinois’ jobs growth with anti-competitive
legislation such as SB 1905 could also increase out-migration of
Illinois residents to other states with better opportunities and
friendlier jobs climates. Illinois already has the worst
out-migration crisis in the nation, and the biggest cohort of people
leaving Illinois for other states is working-age adults.
Illinois doesn’t just lose residents to states with sunnier weather.
Illinois loses residents to states in its own backyard, and SB
1905’s loud anti-growth message could spur still more residents and
businesses to flee to Illinois’ Right-to-Work neighbors. Between
2006 and 2015, the Land of Lincoln lost: over 13,000 people on net
to Kentucky, nearly 73,000 people on net to Missouri, almost 120,000
people on net to Indiana, close to 86,000 people on net to
Wisconsin, and nearly 48,000 people on net to Iowa. Moreover,
Michigan has now reversed the migration flow between itself and
Illinois, causing Illinois to lose over 4,000 people on net to the
Wolverine State between 2014 and 2015.
State politicians should not try to strip localities of the right to
implement worker freedom policies and improve their economies
SB 1905 is intended to kill Lincolnshire’s ordinance and any
would-be Right-to-Work municipalities’ efforts to attract more
businesses, foster greater jobs growth, and promote genuine worker
freedom for their residents. In addition to undermining localities’
initiatives to enhance economic opportunity in their communities,
this legislation is the last thing a state with lagging jobs growth
should do. It broadcasts to businesses unions’ grip on the state,
and deters job creation and investment in Illinois. Rather than
smothering local worker freedom efforts, the General Assembly should
give all Illinoisans the right to decide whether to pay money to a
union.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
