Oh wait, they're not interested in creating jobs, they just want to enrich their corporate backers.
The term "right to work" was cleverly chosen, because it sounds like something good -- a guaranteed job, maybe. Proponents claim it gives workers an "option" that they don't have with "forced unionization." Labor unions for decades have struggled for years to find a good way to reframe the phrase.
We Party Patriots posted a great rebuttal to claims about "right to work." Author Steve Cooper argues the "option" frame is,
...one that positions unions as “forcing” something on workers and “taking” from their paychecks. In reality, the sum collected in union dues is often less than the savings associated with wage and health benefits bargained by the dues collecting entity. All of this in the shadow of Right-to-Work states averaging some $5,000 less in annual compensation. Further, every job is optional and countless positions in countless professions come with requirements attached (drug tests, graduation requirements, unpaid or minimum wage training programs) that are factors in whether or not one pursues a job. The paying of dues, for which there is a proven and direct benefit to the dues-paying employee, is hardly an inhibition or a barrier to entry, though it is frequently framed as such.Thanks, Steve!
