Richard McIntyre: Gablinske wrong about right-to-work states

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 2:01pm

 

Mark Patinkin’s fawning portrait of Doug Gablinske (“Gablinske says he won’t give in to union influence,” Dec.12) was followed three days later by Gablinske’s Commentary piece (“Teachers should oppose dirty tricks”).

Whether Gablinske has or has not been mistreated by union members is a matter for the courts to decide. But he misrepresents basic economic issues concerning labor law and Patinkin apparently did not have the time to check the facts.

 

 

Patinkin quotes Gablinske as saying “22 other states have a right-to-work law . . . . And those states, by the way, have the best economic environments. Businesses are flocking to them.” There is no evidence presented 

Prof. Ric McIntyre, University of  Rhode Island
IB Image

for this.

There is simply no support for the claim that such laws create “the best economic environment.” In so-called right-to-work states, family incomes are lower, and the percentage of people without health care is higher, as are the poverty rate and the rate of fatal injuries on the job. There is a small positive employment effect in manufacturing, a negative effect in agriculture, fishing and extractive industries, and mixed results in services.

According to the Kids Count survey, the three worst states for children are right-to-work states, while the three best are collective-bargaining states.

One thing these laws do accomplish is that they limit unionization. This appears to be their real goal. Unions have their faults, and I doubt a purely public-sector union movement can survive. But trade unions were the motor of middle-class prosperity and economic democracy in the 20th Century, and to suggest that we adopt laws that would further weaken them is to cut off the nose to spite the face.

Richard McIntyre Wakefield

The writer is a professor of economics at the University of Rhode Island and a member of the American Association of University Professors.

 

From Providence Journal Friday, January 7, 2011 Letter to the Editor