Right to work: ‘wrong’ for Minnesota, a right to 'freeload'

“Wrong” for Minnesota and a “right to freeload,” is how media articles and posts are labeling the Minnesota Legislature's proposed “right to work” constitutional amendment.

Two opinion pieces in Sunday’s Star Tribune oppose “the wrongly-named “right to work” proposed constitutional amendment. The Star Tribune’s editorial (Editorial: 'right to work' is wrong for state) pointed out that “right to work” “is wrong for this state.”

Gov. Dayton pointed out is his State of the State address that Minnesota has a lower unemployment rate than four of the five “right to work” states ranked by a top conservative business group, the Star Tribune editorializes. “Contrary to what its label implies, it would give no one the right to a job,” the editorial said in part. “Rather, it would allow workers in union shops the option of a ‘free lunch’ – the chance to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it.”

Another opinion piece by University of Minnesota Professor Aaron Sojourner, an economist and faculty in the Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies, was published in Sunday’s Star Tribune (Say no to right-to-work University economist) challenges the claims of those who would like to make Minnesota a "right to work" (RTW) state. Not only is “right to work” wrong Minnesota, Sojourner said, “… States with RTW laws should repeal them and join free-bargaining Minnesota. We enjoy a higher standard of living, stronger economic growth, a better education system and a more promising strategic position for the future.”

In an article and video aptly name, “Right to Freeload,” Minnesota 2020 said it's important to know what could be stripped away by proposed legislation. The website has a video that talks to workers that this proposed constitutional amendment would remove benefits provided by unions, compromise safety, shortcut training programs, and even eliminate voices in contract negotiations.