Today the Americans for Prosperity Foundation held a luncheon to “Analyze the Effects of Right to Work Laws in New Hampshire.” The lunch was held at the Derryfield Restaurant after being moved from the Manchester Country Club due to the AFL-CIO threatening to protest. This actually provided AFP with a larger venue which enabled even more people to attend. The room was packed with Legislators, candidates and activists from across the Granite State.
The main topic of the event was to discuss research that shows how New Hampshire would benefit from becoming a Right to Work State. The Granite State is currently run as a “forced union” state which means that workers who seek a job at a union shop (whether public or private) are forced to either join the union or they can opt out but still pay an “Agency Fee” which is almost as much as union dues. This clearly violates workers’ freedom in the “Live Free or Die” state and the majority of workers in New Hampshire are against this and for Right to Work (RTW).
The research was conducted by Duncan Taylor of Americans for Prosperity who took painstaking efforts to research years’ worth of data from across the country and in New Hampshire. His discoveries show that Granite Staters would absolutely benefit from the state becoming a Right to Work state. Not only does it benefit workers but the state’s economy overall. Some findings from Taylor’s research (NOTE: these are paraphrased directly from the study):
RTW states posted a 6.6% increase in total employment compared to forced union states’ increase of only .3% (NOTE: Duncan refers to forced unionism as “union security” in his research)
RTW states experienced a 42.6% gain in total employment, contrasted to less than a 19% gain in forced union states
Union membership in forced union states is 15% compared to 5.6% in RTW states; however union membership is actually growing in RTW states because unions have to actually be competitive rather than forcing members to join
When economic conditions are held constant, average wages in RTW states were 6.68% higher than in forced union states
How would RTW specifically benefit New Hampshire?
The state would add 4,000 – 6,000 additional jobs over the next 2 years over current growth rates
Unemployment in the state would drop at or near 4% which would approach full levels of employment
Available supply of labor would increase
If New Hampshire had passed RTW in 1977, every Granite Stater would be earning $3,000 per year today
Clearly turning New Hampshire into a RTW state would benefit all Granite Staters, including union members who would finally get union leaders who truly represent them rather than representing only the interests of union leaders. Not only would the economy grow and jobs increase but unemployment would decrease. New Hampshire needs RTW because it will simply make the state better. It will be more attractive to manufacturing businesses and more attractive to employees who refuse to give up their freedom of choice.
The union did indeed protest during the luncheon today but the numbers were small and many appeared to be from Massachusetts according to reports (SEE: photo of one who actually came into the building looking for the union protest). One protester actually muttered something about being against Capitalism. Apparently he doesn’t realize that it’s thanks to Capitalism he even has a job. All-in-all, the protest was peaceful and the number of people inside the event who are for worker freedom vastly outnumbered the minimal number outside.
This actually represents New Hampshire as a whole. The majority of people in the Granite State are for changing the state into a RTW state. This is the “Live Free or Die” state, it shouldn’t be you have to “Pay the Union without a Choice” state. Another key takeaway from today’s luncheon is that voters need to know which candidates are indeed for growing the economy in New Hampshire and creating worker freedom. Any candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, who is against RTW is against worker freedom; growing the economy; lowering unemployment; increasing worker earnings and attracting new business should be rightfully booted to the curb.