Québec Droite

Nous savons qu’une réglementation excessive du marché du travail, tel que l’obligation d’adhérer à un syndicat est un facteur important pour l’investisseur privé, la prospérité de la région et la migration des individus.

Droit de non-affiliation : Donne le choix aux travailleurs d'adhérer librement à un syndicat, permet aux salariés qui ne souhaitent pas devenir membres d'un syndicat de payer moins de cotisations ou de ne pas en payer du tout.

Puisque les États-Unis ont 22 États qui possèdent le droit de la non-affiliation examinons les incidences économiques par rapports aux autres États qui obligent la syndicalisation.

Europe :        Les travailleurs non syndiqués des 47 pays membres du Conseil de l'Europe n'ont aucune obligation d'adhérer à un syndicat ni de payer des cotisations syndicales à des fins autres que de négociation.

                     En somme, seuls les salariés qui adhèrent volontairement au syndicat paient des cotisations et celles-ci doivent servir à l'organisation du syndicat, à des contributions aux partis politiques et à des causes sociales.

Canada :        Les syndicats sont toujours autorisés à prélever des cotisations auprès de tous les travailleurs en milieu de travail syndiqué, même ceux qui ont décidé de ne pas adhérer au syndicat.

États-Unis :  Dans 22 États, (Right to Work State) les lois sur le droit au travail interdisent les conventions collectives exigeant que des salariés adhèrent à un syndicat ou paient des cotisations. : Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Le droit de la non-affiliation (Right to Work) modifie le comportement des unions sur la négociation des travailleurs. Un État où le droit de la non-affiliation est appliqué, l’union doit travailler pour garder la fidélité du travailleur pour qu’il reste dans l’union et de payer ses cotisations syndicales.

Les syndicats sont plus susceptibles de se concentrer sur les questions fondamentales, telles que : la rémunération, les avantages et les conditions de travail qui offrent des avantages immédiats pour les travailleurs, et moins susceptibles à négocier des accords complexes qui renforcent leur contrôle sur le lieu de travail au prix d’entraver la productivité.

En conséquence, les syndicats qui sont assujettis au droit de la non-affiliation deviennent moins un frein sur la productivité, mais pas au détriment des travailleurs.

Les avantages pour les employeurs sont évidents ; dans un État ou le droit de la non-affiliation existe, les d'employeurs reçoivent plus de productivité pour chaque employé.

Pour les salariés, le bénéfice d'une loi ‘Right to Work’ peuvent être moins évidents, mais influencent inévitablement l'économie fondamentale : la productivité du travail, incite aux futurs employeurs de s’y installer, donc plus de  demandes pour la main-d'œuvre, plus d'emplois sont offerts et augmentent les salaires attachés à ces emplois.

On remarque empiriquement que les emplois et les salaires augmentent plus rapidement dans les États ou le droit ‘Right to Work’  existe, une proposition gagnante-gagnante pour les travailleurs et les employeurs.

Nous pouvons facilement le constater depuis une décennie, les fabricants d’automobiles se déplacent vers les États où le droit de la non-affiliation existe.

Lectures complémentaires

1.       America's Other Auto Industry, The Wall Street Journal, Décembre 1, 2008

2.       Mississippi a win-win situation, Paul Kersey , 8/27/2010

3.       Forced-Unionism Expansion Would Hurt Young Employees, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, March 9, 2010

4.       Forced-Unionism Expansion Would Hurt Young Employees the Most, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, March 9, 2010

5.       Exodus From Forced-Unionism States Continues, Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance of the University of Michigan, January 13, 2009

6.       Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2008 Update, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, October 2008

7.       Right to Work States’ Lead in Job Growth Consistent Over Time Ten-, Five- and One-Year Increases More Than Double Those of Forced-Dues States, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, April 15, 2008

8.       The Economic Effects of Right-to-Work Laws: 2007, Paul Kersey, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Midland, Michigan

Extrait de: America's Other Auto Industry, The Wall Street Journal, Décembre 1, 2008

These are the 12 "foreign," or so-called transplant, producers making cars across America's South and Midwest. Toyota, BMW, Kia and others now make 54% of the cars Americans buy.

The international producers' relatively recent arrival has spared them these legacy burdens. But they also made sure not to get saddled with them in the first place. One way was to locate in investment-friendly states.

The South proved especially attractive, offering tax breaks and a low-cost, nonunion labor pool. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina -- which accounted for a quarter of U.S. car production last year -- are "right-to-work" states where employees can't be forced to join a union.

The absence of the UAW also gives car producers the flexibility to deploy employees as needed. Work rules vary across company and plant, but foreign rules are generally less restrictive. At Detroit's plants, electricians or mechanics tend to perform certain narrow tasks and often sit idle. That rarely happens outside Michigan. In the nonunionized plants, temporary workers can also be hired, and let go, as market conditions dictate.

Extrait de: It Would Be a Living..., There are new auto jobs opening up. In Mississippi of all places,  Paul Kersey , 8/27/2010

New union jobs in Michigan auto plants pay $14 dollars an hour and are awful tough to find. It wasn't that long ago that GM eliminated 20,000 jobs as part of its bankruptcy.

New non-union auto jobs in Mississippi, which has right-to-work protections for employees, pay $15 an hour, and even in a tough economy, they are relatively easy to find. In fact, there's a new Toyota plant near Tupelo that's looking to hire about 2,000 workers.

Now, was someone saying something about right-to-work-for-less?

Extrait de: Forced-Unionism Expansion Would Hurt Young Employees the Most, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, March 9, 2010

Low Union-Monopoly States Furnish ‘Safety Valve’ For Americans Aged 25-34 Who Can’t Find Decent Job Opportunities in High Union-Monopoly States, Census Bureau Data Show The newly published 2010 edition of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States shows that, in 2008, there were 40.932 million U.S. residents aged 25-34 living in one of the 50 states or Washington, D.C. That represents a 5.6% increase over the total 25-34 year-old population in 1998. In absolute terms, the U.S. population in this age bracket increased by 2.158 million over the past decade.1

Though they are located variously in the New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and East North Central regions of the U.S., all 13 states enduring the worst losses all have one important public policy in common: Not one has a Right to Work law that prohibits making forced union dues or fees a condition of employment. In contrast, all six of the states outside the West with young-adult population gains of more than 10.0% are Right to Work states.

Extrait de : Tax-Paying Families Are Fleeing Forced-Unionism States, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, November 20, 2009,

From 2007 to 2008 Alone, a Net Total of 185,000 Federal Tax Filers Moved Out of Forced-Dues States, That means a net total of 185,000 tax filers moved from a forced-unionism state to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008.

The SIS also calculates and makes available to the public the aggregate adjusted gross incomes for migrating households in the year immediately following the move. Personal income tax filers moving to a Right to Work state between 2007 and 2008 reported a total of $76.432 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $50,190 per filer. Tax filers moving out of a Right to Work state during the same period reported a total of $61.773 billion in income in 2008, or roughly $46,165 per filer.

Extrait de: Exodus From Forced-Unionism States Continues, Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance of the University of Michigan, January 13, 2009

The eight states enjoying the greatest net in-migration of people from other states between 2000-2008 all have Right to Work laws. But of the eight states suffering the worst out-migration, only Katrina-hit Louisiana has such a law (see chart below).

Moreover, in every tax filing year examined, the average income of a tax filer moving to a Right to Work state was at least $3000 higher (in 2008 dollars) than the average income of a tax filer leaving a Right to Work state.

"Study after study has shown that forced unionism eliminates job opportunities and cuts employees' real incomes. Apparently, ordinary citizens know these studies are right. A new U.S. Census Bureau report shows that the massive 1990s exodus of employees and their families from forced-unionism states is accelerating during the current decade.

According to the report, between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2008, a net total of 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-unionism states to Right to Work states. That's on top of a net population transfer of nearly five million Americans to Right to Work states during the 1990s. "

Extrait de: Right to Work States Benefit From Faster Growth, Higher Real Purchasing Power – 2008 Update, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, October 2008

 Extrait de: Right to Work States’ Lead in Job Growth Consistent Over Time Ten-, Five- and One-Year Increases More Than Double Those of Forced-Dues States, National Institute for Labor Relations Research, April 15, 2008

Year after year, U.S. Labor Department data have shown that states with Right to Work laws on the books have far faster private-sector job growth than states that do not protect employees from federal policies authorizing the termination of workers for refusal to pay dues or fees to an unwanted union.

Between 1997 and 2007, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by a net 17.7%. That’s more than double the relatively small increase in private-sector jobs experienced by non-Right to Work states over this period.

The Right to Work job-growth advantage has historically been wider in times when the national economy is in or recovering from a recession. However, since the last nationwide recession ended in 2001, the Right to Work advantage has remained extraordinarily wide, see the tables.

Over the five years from 2002 to 2007, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased from 40.92 million to 44.85 million, or 9.6%. Meanwhile, jobs in forced-dues states increased by barely more than a third as much. Over this entire period, forced-dues states’ private-sector employment went from 67.27 million to 69.72 million, a gain of just 3.6%.

Right to Work laws protect the freedom of both private- and public-sector employees to keep and hold a job without forking over dues or fees to a union that is recognized as their “exclusive” (actually, monopoly) bargaining agent.

Unless they are protected by a state Right to Work law, independent-minded employees have no power to fight back against greedy and tyrannical union bosses by withholding their financial support.

And when employees have no personal freedom of choice, union bosses have little incentive to tone down their class warfare. Employees are consequently far less likely to reach their full productive potential and reap the accompanying benefits.

That’s a key reason why not just the private-sector job index, but almost every economic indicator, shows that forced union dues inhibit growth.

Private-Sector Jobs and Growth 1997, 2002, 2006, 2007: Right to Work States

<></>

Private-Sector Jobs and Growth 1997, 2002, 2006, 2007: Forced Dues States

<></>

Extrait de: The Economic Effects of Right-to-Work Laws: 2007, Paul Kersey, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Midland, Michigan

Conclusion

Right-to-work laws change the incentive structure for unions. Because a union in a right-to-work state must persuade individual workers to pay union dues, unions are more likely to focus on bread-and-butter issues of pay, benefits and working conditions that provide immediate benefits to workers, and less likely to negotiate complex agreements that enhance their control over the workplace — and unionized workers — at the cost of impeding productivity.36

As a consequence, unions in right-to-work states are less of a drain on productivity, but not at the expense of workers. The benefits for employers are obvious; in a right-to-work state employers receive more productivity for each employee compensation dollar.

For employees, the benefit of a right-to-work law may be less obvious, but flows inevitably from fundamental economics: higher labor productivity in right-towork states results in more demand for labor, and as demand increases, more jobs are offered and the wages attached to those jobs go up. The basic economic record bears this out: both jobs and wages are increasing faster in right-to-work states, a win-win proposition for workers.

If anything the advantage of right-to-work status is growing: comparing the 30- year period from 1970 to 2000 that Wilson covered with the 2001-2006 period covered by this report, we find larger gaps in GSP growth and job creation, both in favor of right-to-work states. Disposable income remains lower in right-towork states, but right to-work states had been “catching up” in this category prior to 2000. The process accelerated between 2001 and 2006 to the point where the typical right-to-work state will surpass Michigan in a few years.

For Michigan, a state undergoing a difficult economic transition, the enactment of right-to-work legislation would make the state’s workers more attractive to new employers, giving a boost to employment and wages at a time when both are sagging.

Michigan has a right to be proud of its past as a leader in providing workers with plentiful jobs at excellent wages, but its residents and political leaders must recognize that policies that were effective in the past are not viable now. The state’s acceptance of compulsory union membership, and the burdens it placed on employers, could be borne easily when the state was the center of a lucrative industry that faced little competition.

But all industries confront new competition, and the auto industry in particular faces new competitors that do not bear that burden of compulsory unionism, either because they have avoided union representation or because they have located in right-to-work states. Michigan should not let pride in its past blind it to changes that are taking place today. The right-to-work states are poised to overtake Michigan in both job creation and wages. It is doubtful that Michigan can beat them. The state would be better off joining them.