Unions hinder economic growth and the free market

Reuters

Anti right-to-work protester Susan Laurin (C) of Michigan State Employees Union Local 6000 yells with fellow protesters outside of Michigan's state capitol building in Lansing December 11, 2012.

Article Highlights

  • Union shop laws, which right-to-work laws repeal, are a means of circumventing a competitive labor market.

    Tweet This

  • States should seek to pass right-to-work laws as part of reforms to strengthen their economies and enhance growth.

    Tweet This

  • State & local governments often seem to do more to promote entrenched interests than a true culture of competition.

    Tweet This

  • Legal preferences are anticompetitive, and state lawmakers should be rooting them out.

    Tweet This

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in US News & World Report's 'Debate Club' in response to the question: Are 'right-to-work' laws good for states?

Union shop laws, which right-to-work laws repeal, are a means of circumventing a competitive labor market. They treat workers as interchangeable parts rather than individuals, force them to join organizations with strong political preferences that they may not share, and have historically been a means of privileging certain groups at the expense of others. They may be effective at shifting economic resources, but they are a hindrance to growing the economy and creating new opportunity.

So it is right that states should seek to pass right-to-work laws as part of reforms to strengthen their economies and enhance economic growth. This is not about ideological opposition to unions; it's about increasing the economic freedom of Americans in an increasingly globalized, competitive economy.

But labor unions are far from the only threat to free markets and a competitive economy that state lawmakers should address. In the name of being "pro-business," states hand out over $80 billion a year in business incentives, according to a recent analysis by the New York Times. The vast majority of these do little or nothing to promote economic growth; they are merely giveaways to the well-connected. This doesn't begin to count nonfinancial regulatory preferences that benefit some firms over others, the abuse of eminent domain policies for private gain, or the almost $100 billion in federal business incentives.

Indeed, in all too many instances, state and local governments seem to do more to promote entrenched interests than promote a true culture of competition. Lawmakers should be thinking about how to remove barriers to entry rather than which firms they should subsidize; they should be simplifying tax codes and regulatory burdens rather than carving out loopholes and making it harder for entrepreneurs to start or expand businesses.

Legal preferences—whether they are for unions, specific firms, politically-connected operators, or whole economic sectors—are anticompetitive, and state lawmakers should be rooting them out.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Arthur C.
Brooks

What's new on AEI

We still don't know how many people Obamacare enrolled
image The war on invisible poverty
image Cutting fat from the budget
image Speaker of the House John Boehner on resetting America’s economic foundation
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 22
    MON
  • 23
    TUE
  • 24
    WED
  • 25
    THU
  • 26
    FRI
Monday, September 22, 2014 | 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Policy implications of the new US labor market normal

We welcome you to join us as a panel of economists discuss US wage and price prospects in the coming months and the implications for the Federal Reserve’s current unorthodox monetary policy.

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.