Right-to-work laws endanger workers

Apr 08, 2011

Right-to-work laws not only hurt labor unions financially, they also may jeopardize worker safety, says a University of Michigan researcher.

New research by Roland Zullo of the U-M Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy shows that right-to-work laws result in the underfunding of safety training and accident-prevention activities.

Right-to-work laws, which currently exist in 22 states, enable workers at union companies to forgo paying union dues if they object. These workers, however, still enjoy the same benefits and protections that dues-paying union members receive.

"Several states are currently considering adopting right-to-work laws, but passing these laws may have the unintended consequence of elevating workplace fatalities," Zullo said. "States attempting to reduce worker fatalities should consider encouraging trade union growth and repealing right-to-work laws."

Zullo examined construction industry and occupation fatality rates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 2001 to 2009. Industry fatality rates include people who are not usually members of the building trades, such as drivers, while occupation fatality rates include people in the building trades who are not employed in the construction industry, for example, local government.

He found that the rate of industry fatalities is 40 percent higher and the rate of occupational fatalities is 34 percent greater in right-to-work states. Zullo acknowledges that these numbers alone fall short of testing whether right-to-work laws are responsible for the relatively high fatality rates.

"Right-to-work laws are found predominantly in the southern and western United States, and it could be that other factors, such as geographic terrain, weather, and so forth, affect worker safety," he said. "Unions also have a stronger presence in non-right-to-work states."

Using , Zullo tested whether state-level unionization is related to industry or occupational fatality rates and, if so, the extent to which the association between unionization and fatalities relate to right-to-work laws.

According to the results, higher union density in a state equals higher worker safety, a finding consistent with the view that unions act to protect member safety. A 1 percent increase in union density equates with a 0.12 percent decline in the industry fatality ratio and a 0.22 percent decline in the ratio of occupation fatalities.

Although he found no direct association between right-to-work laws and industry and occupation fatalities, Zullo's findings suggest that the estimated effect union density has on reducing worker deaths does depend on state right-to-work laws. In states without such laws, a 1 percent increase in union density correlates with a 0.35 percent decline in the ratio of industry fatalities and a 0.58 percent drop in the occupation fatality ratio.

"Unions appear to have a positive role in reducing construction industry and occupation fatalities, but only in states without right-to-work laws," he said.

In non-right-to-work states, industry fatalities are 0.23 per thousand (0.22 per thousand for occupation fatalities) in states with low levels of union density and 0.16 per thousand (0.11 per thousand for occupation fatalities) in states with high union density. The industry fatality rates are relatively flat in right-to-work states, ranging from 0.20 per thousand in low union-density states (0.18 per thousand for occupation fatalities) to 0.18 per thousand (0.14 per thousand for occupation fatalities) in states with high levels of unions.

"In terms of work fatalities, the construction industry is among the most hazardous," Zullo said. "Labor unions in construction spend millions annually on safety training and accident prevention. Health and safety agendas are encouraged at the national level, but programs are predominantly funded and provided for at the state and local level. It therefore follows that if unions are located in right-to-work states, they will have fewer resources to devote to safety training and accident prevention.

"Overall, the results show that construction is associated with lower industry and occupation fatality rates. Moreover, the positive effect that unions have on reducing fatalities appears to be stronger in states without right-to-work laws. These results call for policymakers to deliberate over the potential negative effect of right-to-work laws on worker health and safety."

Explore further: Exxon Valdez 2014: Does media coverage of manmade disasters contribute to consumer complacency?

More information: www.ilir.umich.edu/LSC/Publica… esInConstruction.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A look at public policies and motorcycle safety in the US

Oct 29, 2009

One of the joys of riding a motorcycle is the freedom that comes with that form of travel. However the absence of physical barriers to protect riders puts motorcyclists at a higher risk of injury than other motorists. Motorcycle ...

Recommended for you

Will the real unemployment rate please stand up?

Sep 10, 2014

America's unemployment rate—most recently reported as 6.1 percent—has long been used to gauge the country's economic well-being. But a new working paper released by Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public ...

Promoting homeownership is not entirely risk free

Sep 10, 2014

For twenty years, Switzerland has been promoting homeownership by letting residents draw on their pension fund assets to buy a home. In a recent study, Philippe Thalmann, EPFL professor in economics and architecture, dispels ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shelgeyr
2.9 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2011
Right-to-work laws not only hurt labor unions financially, they also may jeopardize worker safety, says a University of Michigan researcher.


I imagine the State of Texas, among 21 others, would beg to differ.

Right-to-work laws, which currently exist in 22 states, enable workers at union companies to forgo paying union dues if they object. These workers, however, still enjoy the same benefits and protections that dues-paying union members receive.


That has to be the worst definition of right-to-work laws I have ever read. How about the far simpler "Right-to-work" means you have a right to work, i.e. be employed by someone, without also being required by law to needlessly belong to or at least pay kickbacks to a union if you do not wish to do so. You know, that whole "freedom & liberty" thing.

Might I add that I am shocked... Shocked! to find out this study is from the University of Michigan.
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2011
Shelgeyr is a wonderfully tolerant reviewer, far more than I. I didn't get past phrases like "union companies" in the second paragraph, or "underfunding of ... training and ... activities" in the first, amazingly bigoted solipsisms from an academic.

I would contradict with the suggestion that the lower productive activities and rate means fewer hazardous activity hours. BUST THE UNIONS
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2011
I prefer right-to-work. It's annoying not having a choice on the Union dues that I really don't want to pay, or even be involved in.