Why ‘right-to-work’ was always wrong for Michigan: Restoring workers’ rights is key to reversing growing income inequality in Michigan

The Michigan state legislature is poised to make history this week by repealing an anti-union “right-to-work” (RTW) statute enacted in 2012. This repeal is an important step toward empowering workers to address historic levels of income inequality and unequal power in our economy, and would mark the first time a state has repealed a RTW law in nearly 60 years.

For decades, Michigan boasted the highest unionization rate in the country—and relatively higher median wages resulted for the state’s workers. In this blog post, we find that as recently as 2005, Michigan’s unionization rate was 1.69 times the national rate, and the state’s median wage was 6% higher than the national median.

But after lawmakers passed RTW in 2012, Michigan’s unionization rates declined faster than in the nation as a whole, and the state’s relative median wage fell below the U.S. median. Attacks on Michigan workers’ rights have especially benefited the rich—declines in unionization rates have been accompanied by dramatic increases in income inequality, with half of all income in the state now going to the top 10%.

The repeal of RTW in Michigan—in tandem with Illinois voters approving a constitutional Workers’ Rights Amendment (which bans future RTW laws) in 2022 and Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejecting their legislature’s attempt to impose RTW restrictions in 2018—would also signal an important turning point after a decade of extreme anti-union state legislation in the Midwest that has suppressed wages and eroded job quality.

So-called right-to-work laws perpetuate inequality and result in lower wages and benefits for all workers

As Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out in 1961, “right-to-work” is a “false slogan” because RTW laws provide neither rights nor work, and are in fact designed “to rob us of our civil rights and job rights [and] to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.” Decades later, research bears out King’s contention that “wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower.”

RTW laws are designed to diminish workers’ collective power by prohibiting unions and employers from negotiating union security agreements into collective bargaining agreements, making it harder for workers to form, join, and sustain unions. As a result, states with RTW laws generally have lower unionization rates than non-RTW states. Even after controlling for other factors that can be related to unionization (such as industry, occupation, education, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and foreign-born status), private-sector workers in RTW states are less likely to be covered by a union contract than peers in non-RTW states.

Consequently, workers in states with RTW laws have lower wages, reduced access to health and retirement benefits, and higher workplace fatality rates. Both unionized and nonunionized workers in RTW states are paid 3.1% less, on average, than workers with similar characteristics in non-RTW states, according to previous EPI research. Figure A illustrates that unionized workers are 58% more likely to have employment-provided health insurance and 65% more likely to have employment-provided retirement benefits than their nonunion counterparts.

Figure A

Union workers far more likely to have employer-provided health and retirement benefits: Share of workers with health insurance and retirement benefits, by union status, 2022

Benefit Share of workers receiving benefit
Health care, union 73.2%
Health care, non-union 46.2%
Retirement, union 85.5%
Retirement, non-union 51.8%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: Workers receiving employer-provided benefits is the product of multiplying the share of workers with access to benefits by workers’ take-up rates (both derived directly from the NCS). Access alone understates the union advantage, since sometimes take-up is also improved by unions obtaining better terms of access (i.e., lower share of health premiums they must pay or more-favorable matching rates in retirement plans).  

Source: EPI analysis of 2022 National Compensation Survey (NCS) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

RTW laws are historically rooted in racism and designed to maintain unequal power. When private-sector workers first gained legal protection to unionize after the passage of the federal National Labor Relations Act in 1935, unionization rates grew quickly (see Figure B). In response, anti-union, explicitly white supremacist campaigns to limit worker power and maintain Jim Crow labor relations pursued state legislation as a means to constrain workers’ newly won federal union rights via RTW policies, initially in Southern and Western states. These restrictions on collective bargaining rights have since spread to 27 states and continue to generate economic outcomes that disadvantage all workers.

State policies that reverse these legacies and empower all workers to unionize and collectively bargain should be considered top priorities for legislators in Michigan and across the country because they are fundamentally linked to key economic and labor market outcomes. Data show that unions reduce income inequality across the economy, counteract racial and gender labor market inequities, and reduce public-sector pay gaps.

By weakening unions, ‘right-to-work’ laws fuel economic inequality—especially in Michigan

Through bringing workers’ collective power to the bargaining table, unions are able to win better wages and benefits for working people—reducing income inequality as a result. In decades when union density was higher, there was less income inequality (measured as the share of income going just to the top 10%) than there is today, as seen in Figure B. But as unionization rates declined—particularly after 1979—income inequality worsened.

Figure B

Attacks on workers’ right to unionize benefit the rich: Union membership and share of income going to the top 10%, 1917–2021

Union membership rate Share of income going to the top 10%
1917 11.00%  45.0%
1918 12.10% 44.0%
1919 14.30% 45.9%
1920 17.50% 44.1%
1921 17.60% 47.4%
1922 14.00% 46.1%
1923 11.70% 43.7%
1924 11.30% 45.7%
1925 11.00% 47.2%
1926 10.70% 47.6%
1927 10.60% 47.1%
1928 10.40% 48.2%
1929 10.10% 47.0%
1930 10.70% 46.3%
1931 11.20% 46.3%
1932 11.30% 48.3%
1933 9.50% 48.0%
1934 9.80% 49.1%
1935 10.80% 48.1%
1936 11.10% 48.4%
1937 18.60% 47.5%
1938 23.90% 47.1%
1939 24.80% 48.6%
1940 23.50% 48.9%
1941 25.40% 47.0%
1942 24.20% 42.3%
1943 30.10% 38.9%
1944 32.50% 36.1%
1945 33.40% 35.3%
1946 31.90% 37.0%
1947 31.10% 36.9%
1948 30.50% 38.9%
1949 29.60% 38.3%
1950 30.00% 39.1%
1951 32.40% 37.9%
1952 31.50% 36.6%
1953 33.20% 35.7%
1954 32.70% 36.0%
1955 32.90% 36.7%
1956 33.20% 35.7%
1957 32.00% 35.7%
1958 31.10% 35.5%
1959 31.60% 36.0%
1960 30.70% 35.5%
1961 28.70% 35.6%
1962 29.10% 36.2%
1963 28.50% 36.6%
1964 28.50% 37.0%
1965 28.60% 36.7%
1966 28.70% 36.3%
1967 28.60% 35.3%
1968 28.70% 35.5%
1969 28.30% 34.1%
1970 27.90% 33.5%
1971 27.40% 34.1%
1972 27.50% 34.4%
1973 27.10% 34.6%
1974 26.50% 33.6%
1975 25.70% 34.0%
1976 25.70% 33.9%
1977 25.20% 34.3%
1978 24.70% 34.0%
1979 25.40% 34.3%
1980 23.60% 33.9%
1981 22.30% 34.3%
1982 21.60% 34.6%
1983 20.1% 35.3%
1984 18.8% 36.5%
1985 18.0% 36.6%
1986 17.5% 36.3%
1987 17.0% 37.5%
1988 16.8% 39.3%
1989 16.4% 38.8%
1990 16.0% 38.8%
1991 16.0% 38.3%
1992 15.7% 39.4%
1993 15.7% 39.1%
1994 15.5% 39.2%
1995 14.9% 39.9%
1996 14.5% 40.8%
1997 14.1% 41.5%
1998 13.9% 41.9%
1999 13.9% 42.3%
2000 13.4% 42.8%
2001 13.3% 42.0%
2002 13.3% 41.5%
2003 12.9% 41.6%
2004 12.5% 42.4%
2005 12.5% 43.6%
2006 12.0% 44.3%
2007 12.1% 44.0%
2008 12.4% 43.6%
2009 12.3% 42.5%
2010 11.9% 43.9%
2011 11.8% 44.3%
2012 11.3% 45.6%
2013 11.3% 44.9%
2014 11.1% 45.6%
2015 11.1% 45.5%
2016 10.7% 45.3%
2017 10.7% 45.5%
2018 10.5% 45.8%
2019 10.3% 45.7%
2020 10.8% 44.4%
2021 10.3% 45.6%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Source: Data on union membership follow the composite series found in Historical Statistics of the United States through 1982, updated through 2021 using Bureau of Labor Statistics, series ID: LUU0204899600. Income inequality (share of income to top 10%) data are from the World Inequality Database.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Similarly, declining unionization rates in Michigan have been accompanied by a rising share of income accruing to the top 10%, but Michigan’s income inequality has become even more extreme than nationally. Figure C shows that declines in Michigan’s union membership rate since 1978 were accompanied by a stark increase in income inequality, with the share of income going to the top 10% growing from one-third to now half of all income in the state.

Figure C

Attacks on Michigan workers’ right to unionize benefit the rich: Union membership and share of income going to the top 10%, 1978–2022

Year Michigan union membership rate Michigan share of income going to the top 10%
1978 34.9% 33.5%
1979 37.3% 34.2%
1980 34.6% 35.2%
1981 35.3%
1982 36.6%
1983 30.4% 35.1%
1984 29.1% 36.0%
1985 28.4% 36.8%
1986 28.3% 38.8%
1987 26.6% 37.3%
1988 26.6% 39.1%
1989 26.0% 38.8%
1990 25.3% 37.8%
1991 24.6% 38.7%
1992 25.5% 39.5%
1993 24.4% 39.8%
1994 23.8% 40.0%
1995 23.7% 40.7%
1996 24.0% 41.4%
1997 23.1% 41.7%
1998 21.6% 43.2%
1999 21.5% 42.2%
2000 20.8% 41.0%
2001 21.9% 40.1%
2002 21.1% 41.3%
2003 21.9% 42.1%
2004 21.6% 42.5%
2005 20.5% 42.8%
2006 19.6% 44.0%
2007 19.5% 45.7%
2008 18.8% 45.5%
2009 18.8% 45.8%
2010 16.5% 47.6%
2011 17.5% 47.3%
2012 16.6% 49.6%
2013 16.2% 48.4%
2014 14.5% 48.6%
2015 15.2% 48.1%
2016 14.5% 50.3%
2017 15.6% 49.7%
2018 14.5% 50.5%
2019 13.7%
2020 15.2%
2021 13.3%
2022 14.0%

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: Union data refer to workers 16 and older. Self-employed and self-incorporated workers are excluded from the sample. Union membership data in 1981 are suppressed due to insufficient sample size. Union membership data are not available in the 1982 CPS. 

Source: EPI analysis of Economic Policy Institute. 2023. Current Population Survey, May Supplement (1978-1980) and Outgoing Rotation Group (1983-2022) Extracts, Version 1.0.38, https://microdata.epi.org. Income inequality (share of income to top 10%) data are from the World Income Database.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Michigan used to boast the highest unionization rate in the country. In 1978, 34.9% of Michigan workers were union members, placing its unionization rate at 1.55 times the national average (as shown in Figure D). As recently as 2005, Michigan’s unionization rate was 1.69 times the national rate. During those same periods, median wages in Michigan were about 6% higher than the national median. But in the past decade, unionization rates in Michigan fell faster than in the nation as a whole, and the state’s relative median wage fell along with it. Today, Michigan’s median wage has fallen below the U.S. median.

Figure D

Eroding union advantage ends Michigan's wage advantage: Unionization rate in MI relative to U.S. and MI median wage relative to U.S. median, 1985–2022

 MI median wage relative to U.S.  MI unionization rate relative to U.S.
1985 1.07 1.55
1986 1.07 1.58
1987 1.06 1.59
1988 1.06 1.59
1989 1.05 1.58
1990 1.05 1.58
1991 1.06 1.57
1992 1.06 1.58
1993 1.05 1.57
1994 1.03 1.57
1995 1.04 1.56
1996 1.06 1.59
1997 1.07 1.63
1998 1.08 1.62
1999 1.06 1.58
2000 1.06 1.55
2001 1.05 1.57
2002 1.06 1.59
2003 1.06 1.64
2004 1.07 1.67
2005 1.06 1.69
2006 1.05 1.67
2007 1.03 1.63
2008 1.01 1.59
2009 1.00 1.55
2010 1.00 1.48
2011 0.99 1.47
2012 0.98 1.45
2013 0.97 1.47
2014 0.97 1.41
2015 0.98 1.38
2016 0.98 1.35
2017 0.98 1.39
2018 0.97 1.39
2019 0.97 1.39
2020 0.98 1.37
2021 0.99 1.35
2022 0.99 1.37
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: The relative unionization rate is the share of employed workers who are members of a union in Michigan divided by the same share for the entire United States. The relative median wage is the median wage in Michigan divided by the national median wage. Unionization and median wage data are rolling three-year averages.

Source: EPI analysis of Economic Policy Institute. 2023. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.38, https://microdata.epi.org.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

‘Right-to-work’ laws erode job quality but have no measurable impact on job growth

Despite persistent claims from RTW proponents that weakening unions will lead to state job growth, comparisons of RTW and non-RTW states over decades show no relationship between employment levels and RTW laws.

Figure E illustrates the employment-to-population ratio—the share of workers ages 25–54 with a job—among three sets of states: those that have remained non-RTW, those that adopted RTW before 2010, and those that adopted RTW after 2010. The prime-age employment-to-population ratios among these states reveal no clear differences. There are no measurable employment advantages between RTW or non-RTW states.

Figure E

Right-to-work does not buy any advantage in creating jobs for state residents: Prime-age (25–54) employment as a share of population, by pre-2010 RTW, post-2010 RTW, and non-RTW states

Year Pre-2010 RTW Post-2010 RTW Non-RTW
1990 80.0% 78.6% 79.5%
1991 79.3% 77.1% 78.2%
1992 79.1% 77.8% 77.6%
1993 79.3% 79.3% 77.8%
1994 80.1% 79.9% 78.4%
1995 80.4% 80.4% 79.0%
1996 80.6% 81.1% 79.6%
1997 81.0% 81.7% 80.5%
1998 81.2% 81.6% 80.7%
1999 81.5% 82.1% 81.0%
2000 81.4% 82.0% 81.2%
2001 80.3% 80.9% 80.5%
2002 79.0% 79.5% 79.4%
2003 78.7% 78.7% 78.7%
2004 78.8% 78.6% 78.9%
2005 79.3% 79.1% 79.1%
2006 79.6% 78.7% 79.9%
2007 79.8% 78.5% 80.0%
2008 78.8% 77.6% 79.2%
2009 75.4% 73.6% 76.1%
2010 74.6% 73.4% 75.3%
2011 74.8% 74.3% 75.1%
2012 75.5% 75.1% 75.6%
2013 75.4% 75.5% 75.9%
2014 76.3% 76.3% 76.7%
2015 76.5% 77.1% 77.6%
2016 77.2% 78.4% 78.1%
2017 77.9% 79.0% 78.8%
2018 78.5% 80.2% 79.6%
2019 79.4% 79.9% 80.2%
2020 75.5% 76.0% 75.2%
2021 77.4% 77.7% 77.4%
2022 79.4% 79.0% 80.2%
ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Note: Lines are weighted averages of three sets of states: those without RTW laws, those who have passed RTW laws since 2010, and all other RTW states.

Source: EPI analysis of Economic Policy Institute. 2023. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.38, https://microdata.epi.org.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Prior studies have likewise shown no causal link between a state’s RTW status and its job growth. For example, studies of Oklahoma after the state enacted RTW in 2001 found a significant reduction in private-sector unionization, but no measurable effect on employment growth. Similarly, researchers at the University of Kentucky examined state economic performance across Southern U.S. states from 1964 to 2004 and found that RTW status had no relationship to state economic outcomes. When studies have claimed to find such effects, it is often due to failure to control for other critical factors such as education levels of the workforce, proximity to transportation hubs, advances in technology, or natural resources.

Michigan can lead the way to restoring worker power and democracy after a decade of attacks in Midwestern states

The very need for Michigan to take special action to restore workers’ union rights is a reminder that for too many U.S. workers, the internationally recognized human rights to organize and collectively bargain are either entirely off limits under broken federal labor laws or restricted by a patchwork of state statutes (RTW among them) left to shifting political whims of legislative leaders.

During the past decade, corporate-backed lobby groups have waged an attack on workers’ rights in Michigan and neighboring states by pushing to weaken public-sector workers’ collective bargaining rights, repeal state prevailing wage laws, and pass RTW legislation. Following the 2010 midterm elections, newly elected Republican governors and legislative majorities prioritized these and other forms of extreme anti-union state legislation—especially in the Midwest. EPI analysis at the time documented a clear pattern of cookie-cutter, anti-union bills introduced in multiple state legislatures and driven largely by politics rather than economics. Backed by a network of wealthy individuals and industry groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), these state legislative attacks focused on undermining worker power in both the public and the private sectors.

In 2011–2012, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana joined Michigan in passing legislation to substantially restrict collective bargaining rights of public-sector workers. During the same period, 19 states introduced RTW legislation, and Indiana joined Michigan in passing a RTW law. Within the next five years, Republican-majority legislatures in Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all passed RTW laws (in Missouri, voters restored full bargaining rights for covered private-sector workers by repealing the new RTW law via a 2018 ballot initiative).

As illustrated in Figure F, 27 states now have RTW laws on the books. The majority of these RTW laws were enacted in Southern and Western states in the mid-twentieth century, but after 2010, five states—all in the central U.S.—have newly adopted RTW laws.

Figure F

States with RTW laws limiting worker power: States with statutory restrictions on all workers' collective bargaining rights due to so-called "right-to-work" laws

State “Right to work”
Alaska Non-RTW
California Non-RTW
Colorado Non-RTW
Connecticut Non-RTW
Delaware Non-RTW
District of Columbia Non-RTW
Hawaii Non-RTW
Illinois Non-RTW
Kansas Pre-2010 RTW
Maine Non-RTW
Maryland Non-RTW
Massachusetts Non-RTW
Minnesota Non-RTW
Missouri Non-RTW
Montana Non-RTW
New Hampshire Non-RTW
New Jersey Non-RTW
New Mexico Non-RTW
New York Non-RTW
Ohio Non-RTW
Oregon Non-RTW
Pennsylvania Non-RTW
Rhode Island Non-RTW
Vermont Non-RTW
Washington Non-RTW
Alabama Pre-2010 RTW
Arizona Pre-2010 RTW
Arkansas Pre-2010 RTW
Florida Pre-2010 RTW
Georgia Pre-2010 RTW
Idaho Pre-2010 RTW
Iowa Pre-2010 RTW
Louisiana Pre-2010 RTW
Mississippi Pre-2010 RTW
Nebraska Pre-2010 RTW
Nevada Pre-2010 RTW
North Carolina Pre-2010 RTW
North Dakota Pre-2010 RTW
Oklahoma Pre-2010 RTW
South Carolina Pre-2010 RTW
South Dakota Pre-2010 RTW
Tennessee Pre-2010 RTW
Texas Pre-2010 RTW
Utah Pre-2010 RTW
Virginia Pre-2010 RTW
Wyoming Pre-2010 RTW
Indiana Post-2010 RTW
Kentucky Post-2010 RTW
Michigan Post-2010 RTW
West Virginia Post-2010 RTW
Wisconsin Post-2010 RTW

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Source: Author's analysis of "Right-to-Work States," National Conference of State Legislatures.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

Figure G shows the losses in unionization broken down by RTW status, differentiating among the states shown above that adopted RTW either before or after 2010. Unionization has declined far more sharply in the states that adopted RTW most recently, falling 3.8 percentage points between 2010 and 2022. By 2022, unionization rates were 4.8% in states that had adopted RTW prior to 2010, 9.7% in states that adopted RTW after 2010, and 14.6% in non-RTW states.

Figure G

Recent RTW-adopting states have seen large decline in union membership: Percentage point change in share of workers who are members of a union between 2010 and 2022

Change in membership, 2010–2022
Pre-2010 RTW -0.9
Post-2010 RTW -3.8
Non-RTW -1.7

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

Source: EPI analysis of Economic Policy Institute. 2023. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.38, https://microdata.epi.org.

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

The steep declines in unionization rates in Michigan and other states that adopted RTW in the past decade (often as part of a package of multiple anti-union legislative changes) have devastating and multi-faceted impacts for workers. By lowering the share of workers who have union coverage, RTW laws weaken workers’ bargaining power and allow business owners and corporate shareholders to capture more of the income generated by firms, resulting in lower wages and benefits.

All workers experience a wage disadvantage in states where RTW laws are in place, and data show these disparities are especially pronounced for women and workers of color (who make up two-thirds of today’s union workers). When unions are strong, they improve wages and benefits for all workers (not just those in unions) and reduce racial and gender wage gaps, helping to counteract disparate outcomes resulting from occupational segregation and discrimination in the labor market. When unions are weak, women and workers of color have less hope of working under a union contract, where equal pay for equal work and non-discrimination protections are enforceable guarantees.

Because unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work, states that constrain worker bargaining power end up with less equitable economies and less robust democratic participation from voters. Disparities in worker power across states shape the quality of life, the strength of democracy, and the well-being of all workers, unionized or not. Workers who live in states with higher levels of unionization not only earn higher average wages, but also are more likely to have access to unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family and medical leave than workers in states with lower union densities. Likewise, strong correlations between state-level voting restrictions and low union density show that the future of state-level democracy is itself linked to strengthening workers’ ability to exercise basic rights to organize and collectively bargain.

Repealing RTW and restoring prevailing wage laws are critical steps to rebuilding worker power and reversing this economic damage, but much more remains to be done. Far too many U.S. workers still lack any legal pathway to a union contract, and until Congress enacts major federal labor law reforms, states like Michigan must continue to take the lead on ensuring all workers—including the millions of public-sector, agricultural, and domestic workers who are otherwise excluded from federal labor law—have full union rights. 

At a moment of historic inequality and record corporate profits, it is no surprise we are also seeing historically high levels of approval for unions. Workers are looking to unions as critical vehicles for fixing what’s broken at work and in our wildly unequal economy. The large gap between the share of workers who want a union and the share of workers who are in a union underscores that our system of weak federal labor laws, which are further undermined by RTW measures in over half of U.S. states, is not working. Fundamental reform is required to rebuild an economy that guarantees all workers the freedom to unionize and collectively bargain, and no longer leaves most workers behind.

Past generations of Michigan workers birthed industrial unions that turned poverty-wage factory jobs into living-wage careers, transformed the nation’s manufacturing sector, and sustained worker-led multiracial organizations that laid a foundation for 20th-century civil rights and women’s rights movements. Repeal of RTW in Michigan is a crucial first step to ensuring that current generations of workers have the same chance to come together to reinvigorate our democracy, confront new forms of 21st-century inequality, and restore a fair balance of power to our economy.