Every job has requirements. Some require so many years of experience, for some, an applicant might need a specific skill set, some could require job seekers to demonstrate certain personal traits. Any number of reasonable skills or experiences can make a person either qualified or unqualified for a job. But a job requirement that should never be necessary is whether or not someone pays money to a union.

Right-to-Work laws give workers the freedom to choose if they want to financially support a union. Right-to-Work means that workers get to decide for themselves what’s best for their careers and what organizations they support. Overall, Right-to-Work states typically enjoy stronger state and local economic growth than non-Right-to-Work states. But—as any good economist will tell you—correlation is not causation. How much economic growth can actually be associated with Right-to-Work laws? Do Right-to-Work laws … work?

These are the questions that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy set out to answer when they released their wide-ranging report measuring the impact of Right-to-Work laws in Michigan and Indiana. Policy arguments ring hollow without data to back them up. Mackinac’s Right-to-work report sought to provide that data.

Mackinac Center research finds Right-to-Work states have higher employment and economic growth

Mackinac’s Right-to-Work report, titled The Impact of Right-to-Work Laws: A Spatial Analysis of Border Counties measures industrial sector employment changes in Right-to-Work states compared to neighboring non-Right-to-Work states. The study focused on counties along state borders. As Mackinac’s Director of Public Relations, Holly Wetzel, explains, “Other than Right-to-Work laws, there is practically no difference between southern Lenawee County, Michigan [a Right-to-Work county] and the non-Right-to-Work Northern Ohio county adjacent to it. They have the same days of sunshine, average daily temperature, topography, economies, attitudes toward unions among other topics. By zeroing in on border counties that are alike in so many ways, Mackinac’s research is better able to isolate the impact of Right-to-Work policies. Mackinac is not the first to use this method, but we do believe we improved on and expanded the analysis of those who used this methodology previously.”

As the study authors, Todd Nesbit, adjunct scholar with Mackinac, and Michael LaFaive, Mackinac’s Senior Director of Fiscal Policy, explain in the Wall Street Journal, “We found that states with Right-to-Work protections have a higher employment share in certain industries, such as manufacturing and construction, as a percentage of total private employment. Notably, states that have enacted these laws since 2000 have a 20.7% higher manufacturing share than they otherwise would without a Right-to-Work law. […] Our study indicates that Right-to-Work has broad benefits, and states are harming themselves by not adopting these laws. Policy makers interested in making their states more attractive to employers, especially in union-dense industries such as manufacturing, should consider Right-to-Work.”

Mackinac’s report provided policy experts and state leaders with the tools they needed to prove Right-to-Work’s effectiveness.

Mackinac launches campaign to raise awareness on Right-to-Work

As soon as it was released, Mackinac’s report began to pay dividends. The study was released right before the 10-year anniversary of Michigan’s Right-to-Work passage. And as Wetzel explains, “The media simply couldn’t ignore the positive impacts Right-to-Work has had in the state, especially once Democrats began announcing their intentions to repeal Right-to-Work after winning control of the legislature. This study provided Mackinac with a mountain of intellectual ammunition in the Right-to-Work debate. With a Democratic governor who opposed Right-to-Work from the beginning, it seemed a Right-to-Work repeal would be the first legislation out of the gate. To try and combat this, we ran awareness campaigns featuring data from our study aimed at the press, the public, and officeholders. Since its release, the study has been the subject of a Wall Street Journal op-ed, referenced in a WSJ editorial, covered in National Review, the Detroit News, Real Clear Policy, Crain’s Detroit Business, The Hill, and more.”

One of the stories Mackinac featured in their Right-to-Work research was Angela Phillips. Angela has operated a manufacturing business in Ohio since 2009. When Angela was deciding where to expand the company, Indiana’s Right-to-Work laws motivated her to hop the border and open a new plant in Richmond, Indiana, just outside of Ohio. She is just one of many business owners moving their operations across state borders in response to Right-to-Work laws.

Mackinac’s report proves that stories like Angela’s aren’t isolated incidents.

Now, as more states consider passing Right-to-Work laws—or alternatively—repealing these laws, Mackinac’s study provides critical stakeholders with the facts needed to advance, reinforce, and defend Right-to-Work policies across the country.