A recent survey of New Jersey job providers featured some interesting conclusions. It turns out that current state policies have discouraged new businesses from setting up shop:

Such findings have given the state a national reputation as inhospitable to industry. In 2007, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council rated New Jersey last among states to foster small-scale operations. This year, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation said the state was second to last on its tax-climate index.

So what's an economically stagnating state to do? Here's some sound advice:

"It is not about the broader economy. It is about the poor choices New Jersey has made," said Philip Kirschner, president of the business association...

"As for legislation and policy reform, he said, New Jersey could adopt other states' successful models.

"North Carolina's economy, for instance, grew from agriculture and manufacturing to include tourism, technology and finance, some well-served by research universities. Unlike New Jersey, it is a Right to Rork state - in which union membership is not compulsory..."

Surprise, surprise!  Incidentally, here's CNBC's recent ranking of "America's Top States for Businesses" in the workforce category.  What do the leading states all have in common?  Every one is a member of the Right to Work club.

Of course -- first and foremost -- Right to Work is about employee freedom in the workplace, but much to the chagrin of union bosses, rolling back coercive union power has undeniable economic benefits as well.

As Patrick Semmens pointed out recently, Denver Post columnist Al Lewis got quite an earful for suggesting that workers are rarely dissatisfied with compulsory union representation. But at least Al has the grace to admit he was wrong. In a recent post, he acknowledged that "unions make workers pay."

His colleague Bob Ewegen, on the other hand, is an unrepentant forced unionism propagandist. In a recent column, he trots out the same tired talking points in defense of non-Right to Work states' supposed economic vitality:

If you're lucky enough to find a job at all, the only right the Coors plan gives you is the right to work for less. Quite a bit less, actually. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that an average worker in the 22 states with right-to-work laws earns about $7,131 a year less than workers in free bargaining states ($30,656 versus $37,787). Nationwide, union members earn $9,308 a year more than non-union workers, $41,652 versus $32,344.

A little fact-checking is in order. As noted in this recent post, economically-dynamic Right to Work states enjoy lower taxes, lower housing costs, cheaper goods, and better services. In fact, if you adjust workers' salaries for relative costs of living, employees clearly make more money in Right to Work areas.

Ewegen further suggests that Right to Work states are struggling economically -- rather than serving as powerhouses of job and standard of living growth.

Quoting out of context statistics is a neat -- albeit intellectually dishonest -- rhetorical trick. Most Right to Work states are concentrated in the South, a region that has historically endured lower rates of economic growth than the rest of the country. Now, however, these states boast higher rates of growth than their non-Right to Work counterparts. What's changed? As this analysis demonstrates, states that embrace Right to Work principles enjoy substantially better economic performance.

And these trends show no signs of letting up. According to one blogger, the past several years have seen Right to Work states continue to register better economic performance than their non-Right to Work neighbors.

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

1.) Over at "The Next Right," blogger Soren Dayton has an interesting post up about the implications for Right to Work if a union stooge wins the White House. Money quote:

This vision is about coercively moving more and more Americans into political organizations which use their precious financial resources in a way that they neither control nor even understand.

The entry also offers a compelling indictment of the SEIU's reliance on "card check" organizing drives. Check out the rest of the post here.

2.) The Detroit News has published a rebuttal by Foundation President Mark Mix to a union operative's misleading editorial on the economic benefits of Right to Work policies. Here's the letter's conclusion:

While the moral case for a right-to-work law rests on the principle
that no worker should be compelled to join a union against his or her
will, the economic benefits of protecting employee freedom are also clear. Michigan lawmakers would do well to heed the example of their more prosperous right-to-work neighbors when contemplating what to do about the Wolverine State's economic woes.

Read the whole thing here.

The Detroit News has just published a remarkably fact-free op-ed on the economics of the Right to Work issue. Given the author makes his living from Big Labor's forced dues gravy train (he's a treasurer with the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters & Millwrights) which is partly responsible for Michigan's ongoing economic nightmare, it's no wonder he would be alarmed by the talk of cancelling union bosses' compulsory union dues privileges in Michigan.

The author starts out with this mind-boggling passage:

"Undeniably, having Michigan become a "right-to-work" state would be bad for workers, helping dismantle freely negotiated wage standards and benefits, as well as worker protections, in many industries. In right-to-work states, nonunion members can opt out of paying union dues, even though they receive all the guarantees and protections of the existing union contract under which they work." [Emphasis added]

Freely negotiated wage standards? Really? Is that what they are calling the system of mandatory bargain-or-be-prosecuted federal labor policy? Warehousing employees into collective bargaining units doesn't result in "free" anything, and to suggest otherwise is Orwellian double-talk.

The article continues:

"The reality is that "right-to-work" is not just a union issue. Our modern Michigan economy is in many ways "indivisible." For example, the strength and quality of our outstanding Michigan health care sector relies on the earned health care benefits of workers across many employment sectors, union or nonunion, skilled trade or service worker, blue collar or white.

Similarly, pension funds (whether defined benefit programs negotiated by labor unions in both the public and private sectors, 401(k) and similar plans provided by private employers or individual retirement accounts) are invested directly in our community, while their management supports the financial services sector of our Michigan economy."

Union officials' corrupt history of pension fund management should immediately give Michiganders pause. And the union record on health insurance is hardly better. Take the Michigan Education Association, for example. The Association's health insurance plan forces Michigan taxpayers to subsidize a bloated, uncompetitive payment scheme whose shady accounting procedures have been linked to union political activism.

The article concludes by citing some bogus report issued by Jeff Vincent, research director of the Indiana University Division of Labor Studies' Institute for the Study of Labor in Society.

Vincent's study conveniently ignores Right to Work states' comparative advantages in both higher real earnings and lower average costs of living. In other words, workers' paychecks go a lot further in economically dynamic Right to Work states because the goods they purchase are significantly cheaper.

At this juncture, it's worth noting that the moral case for Right to Work principles is entirely separate from the issue of material prosperity. Here at Freedom@Work, we believe that employees everywhere have an inalienable right to choose whether or not to associate with a union, regardless of anyone's feelings or the perceived economic benefits of collective bargaining. But it's also nice to know that study after study has validated the significant economic, job-creating advantages of Right to Work policies.

As we've said before in this space, defending the rights of employees' not to be forced to pay dues to get or keep a job is the right thing to do no matter the economic ramifications. Fortunately though, there are economic benefits to protecting employees' Right to Work, as many studies by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research have found.

And a new paper released yesterday by the Michigan-based Mackinac Center, again confirms the Right to Work economic advantage:

In the key metrics of economic growth, Right to Work states have a distinct advantage when it comes to unemployment rates, income growth, population increases and jobs.

You can read the Mackinac paper in its entirety here. The paper also looks at the devastating economic impact that forced unionism has had on Michigan.

The Foundation's sister organization, the National Right to Work Committee, reports that it is increasingly gaining traction in efforts to pass a Right to Work law through the Michigan legislature.

Supporting free choice for employees would be the right thing to do, even if it didn't have economic benefits, but fortunately there are significant economic advantages to Right to Work.

The chart below is from the cover story of the latest National Right to Work Committee newsletter, and shows that Right to Work states create new jobs more than twice as fast as forced-union-dues states.

Today's Wall Street Journal points out that union officials are pouring upwards of a billion dollars, much of it in compulsory dues, into the 2008 election cycle. The goal? A sea change of American labor law.

"This is an all-in bet for them in 2008," says Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee, a group that fights down in the trenches against coercive union power. "As market cycles go, they're in their peak, we're in our trough, and they're looking for a clear two-year run" in an all-Democrat Washington.

Then there's the crown jewel:

Tucked into the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act is a provision called 14(b), which allows for "right to work" states. Big Labor last took a run at deleting this section, and forcing more unionization, in the Johnson administration.

Aside from abolishing employees' free choice of whether or not to join or pay dues to a union, wiping the current 22 state Right to Work laws off the map would deal a crushing blow to the American economy.

According to a recent study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, forced unionism cost the American economy upwards of $436 billion in GDP between 2000-2006 alone.

The yoke of compulsory unionism already takes a severe toll on states without Right to Work laws, the last thing America needs is to expand its reach.

Columnist Thomas Sowell points out in an op-ed today the harmful effects of bad economic policies on job creation in "rust belt" states:

In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

He concludes:

Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are
not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old
jobs also keep out new jobs.

Chief among these harmful policies is compulsory unionism. According to a National Institute for Labor Relations Research fact sheet, Right to Work states outperform forced unionism states, which include all of the rust belt, on a litany of economic growth indicators.

Most notably, with regard to job growth, non-farm private sector job growth in Right to Work states nearly doubled that of forced unionism states between 1996-2006. NILRR also notes that Real Personal Income growth also was nearly double in Right to Work states between 2001-2006.

Sounds like the golden goose has fled for greener pastures.

For some time now, we have highlighted the immense advantages Right to Work states have over forced unionism states. But one particular Midwestern state just keeps inching its way back into the limelight – and not in a good way: Michigan.

Workers in this struggling, economically-depressed state have been forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job for years. Correspondingly, the data shows the state’s economy is one of the worst in the nation and has a 7.7 percent unemployment rate.

In this Grand Rapids Press piece, Paul Kersey (director of labor policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy) tells Michiganders that it’s time to take a long, hard look at and the vice grip that compulsory unionism has on workers. Kersey writes:

“…it's time we made union dues optional and let workers decide whether the union is representing them well. States that make union dues optional have been outperforming Michigan for better than 30 years.”

No person should be compelled to pay dues to a union if they don’t want to and Michigan’s situation proves forced unionism doesn’t pay off. Only when the payment of union dues is strictly voluntary, maybe then Michigan’s economy will see prosperity like Oklahoma, which was the most recent state to pass a Right to Work law.

The Wall Street Journal today has a piece recognizing that Right to Work laws are among two vital public policies that:

"...stand out as perhaps the most important in attracting jobs and capital."

WSJ continues:

"States that permit workers to be compelled to join unions have much lower rates of employment growth than states that don't. Many companies say they will not even consider locating a factory in a state that does not have a right-to-work law."

Interestingly, as visible in the graph below, the bottom 10 economicly competitive states are all forced unionism states, while 9 of the top 10 are long time Right to Work states.