Some facts on right-to-work states

Barry Aycock asserts "anyone doing minimal due diligence" will oppose right-to-work legislation [Southeast Missourian, April 29]. Short on facts, though, Mr. Aycock's piece is limited to logical fallacy and shrill, emotional appeals.

The logical fallacy is of the textbook variety: the appeal to authority [I'm a businessman; take my word for it.] From Mr. Aycock, who prefers anecdote, we get no facts, no statistics, no authoritative sources. Readers deserve some of these.

Fact: Freedom to work states attract business investment, leading to more jobs. Right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates than forced-union states.

Fact: The top five states with the lowest unemployment are right-to-work states. The bottom five are forced-union states.

Fact: The 10 states with the highest percentage gains in household employment from the recession's end through September of 2012 all are right-to-work states. Conversely, nine of the 12 states with the worst job losses over the same period are forced-union.

Fact: Bureau of Labor Statistics show none of the five states suffering the worst private-sector job losses over the past decade has a right-to-work law, while four of the five states with the greatest private-sector job gains have right-to-work laws.

Fact: From 2003-2008, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, jobs in right-to-work states grew at 9.1 percent -- 2.5 times faster than in forced-union states.

Fact: Almost 70 percent of business executives specify right-to-work as a key factor [important or very important] in site selection, according to the annual corporate survey published by Area Development magazine.

Fact: Oklahoma adopted right-to-work in 2001. Our neighbors added more union jobs last year than we did here in forced-union Missouri.

Fact: Refuting Aycock's unsupported assertion, average compensation per private-sector worker in right-to-work states is higher than in forced-unionism states, once one accounts for regional differences in the cost of living. According to the nonpartisan Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, in 2010, the average compensation per private-sector employee in right-to-work states was $56,830, roughly $1,100 more than the average for forced-unionism states.

Fact: Since 2007, all of Missouri's bordering right-to-work states [Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee] have enjoyed a higher percentage increase in personal income than has Missouri.

These are the facts. Of course this isn't merely about economics. A moral issue is at stake. Why does Barry Aycock want to force Missourians into unions just to keep their jobs? Why does he insist they be forced to bankroll political activities they don't support?

Aycock characterizes right-to-work legislation as "union-busting." Of course, right-to-work does nothing of the kind. It simply prevents unions from compelling membership as a condition of employment.

Aycock disparages the motives of right-to-work supporters, but what, other than naked self interest, motivates opponents of right-to-work? When workers actually have a choice, union membership falls dramatically. That saves workers -- and costs unions -- a lot of money.

However, if a union truly provides quality service and responds to its members' needs, it need not worry about its members' bailing out when given the freedom to choose.

Peter Kinder, of Cape Girardeau, is the lieutenant governor of Missouri.