Right to Work part 3: Safety

*Note: This is part 3 in a mini series on right to work.*

For this post, we are going to examine some of the claims made regarding the correlation between right to work and worker safety. More specifically, I want to look at some statistics that deal with safety and the of right to work states associated. We’ll examine the often made claim that right to work laws lead to a decline in safety – and see if it bears any fruit. And I want to examine the oft repeated claim made by EVERY company – independent of statistics and facts – that safety is first.

Image courtesy of Laboursolutions.com.au 

If you have missed the previous two posts about right to work they can be found below. This article is a standalone one but reading the others will give you a more comprehensive picture of right to work in general.

Right to work part one is found here.

Right to work part two: Financial Ramifications is found here.

Safety First?

We’re diving right in with this simple but relevant question: is safety really first? We hear it all the time, it’s on banners at worksites, reiterated to employees at safety meetings, sold to clients and agencies, and entire safety plans are crafted to promote that each company is serious about their safety culture. Many companies have drawings and winners for safety hours worked without an injury. Lost time job site boards are often touted as a measure of success in safety. Low EMR ratings are a must when it comes to bidding and workers compensation insurance.

All of these and many not named are often used as evidence of a safety culture that is “safety first.” I, however, don’t believe it – just being honest here. The cry “safety first” is often an empty mantra – polemic that is designed to announce to everyone that a company is all in for safety.

But let’s be real for a moment. Is a company in business to be safe? The answer should be obvious: no – no it’s not. A company is in business to make money. HOW they make money and what they value in pursuit of that money is the heart of the issue.

Considering this is a post on right to work and the affect on safety, the point I’m making is for us to get past the “safety first” mantra and instead look at data – experiential as well as hard numbers. For example, IF a company says safety is important, the way they treat and value their employees should be on full display – by virtue of their particular safety records. What do their injury and illness records look like? Lumping things together for this post, how does right to work affect safety? After all, we are trying to see what affects right to work laws have on safety. Let’s look at some data for a more solid approach.

Examples at play

Example 1

First, I’ll reference this article by the ISHN – Industrial Safety and Hygiene News. The study they speak of can be found on Occupational & Environmental Medicine, which, in short form, speaks of the quantifying data about this very issue. The findings are stellar and difficult to dismiss. For example, they found that a “1% decline in unionisation attributable to RTW is about a 5% increase in the rate of occupational fatalities. In total, RTW laws have led to a 14.2% increase in occupational mortality through decreased unionisation.”

From a medical journal’s perspective, the connection is crystal clear: right to work laws lead to more fatalities on the job. They conclude with this: “These findings illustrate and quantify the protective effect of unions on workers’ safety. Policymakers should consider the potentially deleterious effects of anti-union legislation on occupational health.”

Another article recently published by Safety and Health Magazine stated that “Construction firms with union workers likely to engage in safety best practices, training.” The article has a good synopsis and several bullet points worth the read. If you’d like, they cite the CPWR in their article and it can be found here.

Moreover, this fact is corroborated by someone who advocates for right to work. This website here states that “It’s true that right-to-work states have a greater incidence of fatal workplace injuries, but the very dangerous occupations are concentrated in just a couple of industries and in occupations like farming, fishing and forestry regardless of whether the state has a right-to-work law.” (emphasis mine)

Ignore everything after the bold – it’s just polemic –  designed to direct attention away from the admission that yes, right to work laws DO have higher fatalities associated with them.

What’s more interesting to me is their assertion that while right to work states have higher fatalities they have LOWER injuries. On the face of it this might seem plausible but something doesn’t pass the smell test. How do they have lower injuries but more fatalities?

I’ll tell you how: those right to work states have a history of suppression and intimidation. Without the benefit of a union contract, workers are less likely to report injuries and illnesses, fearing retaliation. You can intimidate the living but the dead? They tell tales beyond the veil. THAT is how you account for lower injuries and illnesses and higher fatalities.

Example 2

Let’s dig a bit further, though, and look into the history of safety and the labor movement. This short paper details some of the safety advances organized labor has pushed in the past century. That is to say, organized labor has been the catalyst for the safety laws and regulations protecting workers today. Most of which many take for granted on a daily basis. OSHA is the most well known entity at play here. Right to work laws and states do not possess the rich history organized labor has protecting workers.

To those in the know, though, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Unions have long sought to increase training overall – including safety. This is accomplished through collective bargaining and allocating funds for such a purpose. No one makes them provide the safety training – it’s their money, in their package – THEY willingly do it. The antithesis, then, would be right to work states do not possess such a legacy nor advocacy of safety. One only need to look at the history for the past 150 years in labor for this to clearly come to life.

Personal Examples and Testimonies

I’ve been in the game for 20 years now. During that time, I’ve see A LOT. I have a habit of talking to people on the job – union and non union alike – and the stories, examples, and injuries are real. With Virginia being a right to work state, I’ve heard countless times someone from another, non right to work state say how lax some of the safety policies are implemented and enforced. I’ve heard non union guys complain about the intimidation they would receive if they reported their injury. The goal, as far as they knew, was to keep down their injuries and illnesses so the company could lower their worker comp insurance. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep their EMR low – but there IS something wrong with doing it through intimidation.

I’ve also seen companies hold union and non union contractors to different standards; with the non union being given leeway with safety measures. Essentially, they were allowed to make safety mistakes union employers were scrutinized for. I can personally attest to seeing this time and time again. The connection with right to work is that the non union is more prevalent – and thereby less safe. Its inclusion here, though, is as experiential data – on top of the hard data written earlier. The case has already been made right to work states have greater fatalities. The reason for this – and it’s not a stretch – is safety is adhered to less, precisely what the experiential data provided validates.

Conclusion

When you consider unionized (non right to work) states have a history of pushing for more safety standards, had a major hand in much of the safety and health legislation/regulations in the past 50 years, and continually advocate for the safety of the working public, the puzzle pieces begin to come together. Additionally, studies like the one referenced above are particularly damaging to the right to work reputation.

If it seems like this piece ignores the claims that right to work is good economically, you’re right: I am. That has already been addressed in the other posts in this mini series. Besides, is this really where the economical argument belongs? The overall reduction of safety is offset by the supposed increase of economic prosperity? Tell that to a widow, parent, child, or sibling. Not only is it untrue but heartless to boot.

Besides, when a medical journal outlines right to work laws and their implementation are a direct connection with increased fatalities, what’s left to argue?

It’s safe – and factual – to say right to work laws definitely affect safety, and not in a good way.