Gay Patriot Header Image

Right-to-work states account for most of nation’s job growth

Seems laws President Obama opposes may have helped secure the Democrat’s reelection.  At his American Enterprise Institute blog, Carpe Diem, University of Michigan economics professor Mark J. Perry reminds us that the incumbent opposes right-to-work laws, legislation which “protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees”.

States which such laws on the books

were responsible for 72% of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012.  If these states’ job increase had been no better than the 0.85% experienced by forced-unionism states as a group, the nationwide job increase would have been less than half as great.  And the President wouldn’t have been able even to pretend the economy was in recovery.

Aggregate household employment grew by 1.86 million jobs in the 22 states with right-to-work laws.  2.59 million jobs created in the nation during that period.  And that number is even more impressive when you consider that the states without right-to-work laws include some with the largest population like California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.

It seems these large states just aren’t created jobs in proportion to their population.  Right-to-work laws allowed for what little job creation there was these last four years.  And it seems there was enough to convince a bare majority of Americans that the economy was enjoying enough of a recovery.

Via Jennifer Rubin.



  1. One thing that’s changed for me as a result of this election: As I grew up in Michigan, I have always been loyal to American car makes. No more. Buying a Ford or GM or Chrysler vehicle means I’m putting money into the pockets of the UAW, who will use it to elect Democrats. No more. I’ll buy my next car from a non-union company.

    Comment by V the K — November 12, 2012 @ 5:57 am - November 12, 2012

  2. I agree that right-to-work helps states’ job markets. I do think it’s possible that there is also a chicken-and-the-egg phenomenon going on to though, with states that adopt business-friendly policies also being inclined to adopt right-to-work. In any case, I wish MN were right-to-work.

    Comment by chad — November 12, 2012 @ 7:40 am - November 12, 2012

  3. V the K-Toyota has US plants (with US employees) and isn’t unionized.

    There is a large Toyota plant not far from where I grew up and a lot of my friends and neighbors work there.

    I think there was a place for unions, but the more I see unions in the modern era they appear to be nothing more than thugs who extort money from members to support the democrats.

    Comment by Just Me — November 12, 2012 @ 11:18 am - November 12, 2012

  4. The only purpose of a union is to protect mediocrity.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 12, 2012 @ 11:46 am - November 12, 2012

  5. If there is one thing to admire in Adolph Hitler, it was granting the unions permission to celebrate labor with a May Day. Then the next day he outlawed unions. Unions served their purpose in the ninteenth century. In the last century they were controlled by the underworld. Now they have emerged as a PAC for the Democrat Party. Maybe this is one of the defects of democracy.

    Comment by Roberto — November 12, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - November 12, 2012

  6. And when it comes to unions-there really shouldn’t be any unionization of public workers.

    Just about any major labor concern when it comes to unfair practices can be addressed throug the EEOC.

    Comment by Just Me — November 12, 2012 @ 12:37 pm - November 12, 2012

  7. I buy Honda because a) my last civic was almost as unkillable as a Toyota Hilux and b) it’s non-union, built in Ohio.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - November 12, 2012

  8. I love how the unions complain that corporations shouldn’t be able to participate in the political life since they aren’t “people”…yet at the same time vigorously-defend the Unions’ right to participate and donate money.

    How is a Union board “representing” it’s members’ interests any different than a corporate Board representing it’s shareholders’ interests? If you object to the financial distortion to the political process, …Ban Them Both from Participating.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 12, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - November 12, 2012

  9. Right to work laws forbid employees and employers from entering into voluntary contracts. Ayn Rand denounced them as a violation of liberty.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 12, 2012 @ 10:34 pm - November 12, 2012

  10. Care to explain how, Mikey?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 13, 2012 @ 9:23 am - November 13, 2012

  11. It’s there in the first sentence of my post, Livewire.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 13, 2012 @ 11:49 pm - November 13, 2012

  12. I love how Mike R attempts this entertaining legal theory.

    Right to work laws forbid employees and employers from entering into voluntary contracts.

    Comment by Mike R. — November 12, 2012 @ 10:34 pm – November 12, 2012

    So according to Mike R, anything that prevents an employer from entering into whatever contract they like with an employer is a violation of rights and should be abhorred.

    Perhaps Mike R ought to learn about the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which explicitly bans agreements between employees and employers that the employee will NOT join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment.

    By the way, Ayn Rand opposed THAT, too.

    Now, if Mike R were being consistent, he would denounce both as being violations of workers’ rights and demand that Norris-LaGuardia be repealed. But of course, he’s not; what he’s objecting to are the provisions of right-to-work laws that make it impossible (technically, unenforceable under law) for unions to demand that people make regular payments to union bosses and the Obama Party in order for them to keep their jobs.

    Why? Because when workers aren’t compelled to join a union and pay dues, they don’t, and the Obama Party would go bankrupt without these compelled contributions.

    That’s really it. Mike R and his fellow Obama puppets don’t care about workers or their rights; what they care about are keeping those forced dues coming into the Obama Party’s coffers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2012 @ 9:43 am - November 14, 2012

  13. Actually, Dallas, for the record, I didn’t denounce Right-to-Work laws. I pointed out that Ayn Rand did. Please confine your description of what I said to, well, what I actually said.

    For the record, though, I oppose both sort of laws — but the kind you brought up were not mentioned in the original post

    Comment by Mike R — November 14, 2012 @ 11:47 am - November 14, 2012

  14. Actually, Dallas, for the record, I didn’t denounce Right-to-Work laws.

    Comment by Mike R — November 14, 2012 @ 11:47 am – November 14, 2012

    Lie. Your post had no purpose other than to bash right-to-work laws.

    I pointed out that Ayn Rand did.

    Of course. You tried the Alinsky tactic of attempting to make people live up to their own book of rules as a means of bashing right-to-work laws.

    Unfortunately for you, your dependence on Obama Party talking points and inability to think or research for yourself leaves you vulnerable to an informed person pointing out your OWN hypocrisy, given how your Obama Party opposes voluntary employer-employee agreements, demands that people be involuntarily required to pay union bosses and the Obama Party to even have a job, and then channels said forced contributions into the Obama Party’s funding.

    The hilarious thing is that you actually thought quoting Ayn Rand might make a difference. This is because you are an Obama drone who isn’t mentally capable of thinking that you might agree with people on some things and not on others. Your Obama Party ideology requires absolute agreement with Obama on everything, and if you don’t, you are denounced as an ignorant racist.

    All you demonstrate, Mike R, is that you are stupid and easily susceptible to bad propaganda. This is no doubt why you vote for Obama and worship Obama as your god.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2012 @ 4:01 pm - November 14, 2012

  15. You know, Dallas, I wish your were the RNC communications director. Forever. The DNC would probably even pay your salary. Forever.

    Comment by Mike R — November 14, 2012 @ 4:14 pm - November 14, 2012

  16. Of course, Mike R.

    Because, as I pointed out, you’re a deranged cultist who has no grip on reality when it comes to the statements of your god Obama.

    You’re just like Levi. Facts, logic, and rationality don’t matter; all you know is “Obama good, Republican bad”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2012 @ 5:57 pm - November 14, 2012

  17. 🙂

    Comment by Mike R — November 14, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - November 14, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.