Does Right-to-Work Help or Hinder Manufacturing?

Machinist union condemns GKN plan to ship 300 St. Louis jobs to Alabama.

Labor union supporters gather at the California State Capitol for the

Labor union supporters gather at the California State Capitol for the “Rally to Save the American Dream” in Sacramento, Calif.

It’s a question that occurs to many people when companies announce the relocation of manufacturing jobs: Are they moving to a right-to-work state?

For those unaware, the idea behind right-to-work laws is to give employees the ability to work without being compelled to join a union. It sounds simple enough, but once that basic idea is enshrined in legally binding statutes, things get a lot more complicated.

There has been a preponderance of theories attempting to explain the growing skills gap in manufacturing. Are wages to blame, or is it a matter of spending more money on education?

Another possibility is that right-to-work legislation has created a disincentive for young people who might otherwise have considered careers in manufacturing.

It’s certainly plausible that right-to-work laws affect where companies choose to relocate jobs.

For example, the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) recently issued a statement condemning GKN Aerospace’s decision to layoff more than 300 union workers at its St. Louis, Mo. facility and move those jobs to its facility in Tallassee, Ala.

GKN builds composite parts for U.S. military fighter jets. Its St. Louis facility handled bonding mechanic work, which will now be handled in Alabama—a right-to-work state.

Map showing states with and without right-to-work laws. (Image courtesy of The National Right to Work Committee.)

Map showing states with and without right-to-work laws. (Image courtesy of The National Right to Work Committee.)

“GKN gathered its employees, some of the highest-skilled aerospace workers in the country, and informed them that the company planned to kick its more than 300 bonding mechanics to the curb and ship their jobs to plants where workers are paid nearly half their wages,” said Stephen McDerman, IAM District 837 directing business representative.

McDerman went on to accuse GKN of “turn[ing] its back on middle-class workers in an attempt to turn a few extra bucks on the back of other workers who don’t have a union”, i.e., those in a right-to-work state like Alabama.

“When you ask who is destroying American manufacturing?” said McDerman, “It’s companies like GKN and the likes, whose collective actions are impoverishing our entire country as we speak.”

Despite its hyperbole, McDerman’s statement raises an interesting—if somewhat troubling—possibility. Could responsibility for the perceived decline in American manufacturing fall to American manufacturers themselves?

Alternatively, one could argue that companies are only responding to the incentives created by states which pass and enforce right-to-work legislation. That doesn’t mean the solution is to eliminate right-to-work laws entirely—though that would no doubt be the IAM’s preferred approach.

What do you think? Are right-to-work laws helping or hindering American manufacturing? Comment below.

Written by

Ian Wright

Ian is a senior editor at engineering.com, covering additive manufacturing and 3D printing, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. Ian holds bachelors and masters degrees in philosophy from McMaster University and spent six years pursuing a doctoral degree at York University before withdrawing in good standing.