What is wrong with Right to Work (RTW)?
“Right to work” (RTW) laws enable “free riders”: Employees in unionized workplaces who refuse to pay union dues while enjoying the union-won wages, benefits, and protections those dues help secure.
Research on RTW laws has consistently found that allowing free riders shrinks union membership and revenue, weakening unions’ ability to bargain effectively.
Unions are legally required to represent and bargain for every worker in bargaining unit — even those who are not dues-paying union members. In a state without RTW laws (like Ohio), workers in a unionized workplace can opt out of paying union dues; depending on their contract, they may instead be required to pay lower-cost “fair-share fees” to help cover the costs of the union-provided representation that benefits them directly.
Workers in RTW states are paid 6.7% less on average than those in non-RTW states, according to new data from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). That’s a difference of more than $4,000 annually for a median full-time worker, and more than double the 3.2% wage penalty EPI found in a similar analysis in 2015.
What’s the state of Right-to-Work in Ohio?
Ohio is not currently a RTW state but some anti-worker legislation has been filed that would roll back worker’s rights and take money out of their pockets. The 136th General Assembly (which ends December 31, 2026) will be debating a set of bills which would allow free riders in the private sector (HB 510) and in the public sector (HB 965).
Three other bills would also weaken workers’ power to secure fair wages, safe working conditions, and other protections from employers: HB 512, HB 513, and SB 1 chip away at aspects of union and worker power, including project labor agreements, prevailing wage, and faculty collective bargaining.
Both HB 510 and HB 965 were introduced by the same representative, Rep. Dean, but various members of the legislature are introducing the others. Reps. Claggett and Workman introduced HB 512; Reps. Lear and Craig introduced HB 513; and SB 1 was introduced by Senator Cirino and ultimately signed by Gov. DeWine.
Taken individually, these appear to be narrow, technical changes. However, alongside the two RTW bills, they add up to a broad attack on Ohio workers, and a piecemeal approach to restoring SB 5, the union-busting law Ohioans overturned in a 2011 landslide.
In Ohio, where decades of attacks on collective bargaining have decreased union representation to 12.8%, working people need legislators to stand up for their rights by voting down these anti-worker bills.
What are HB 510 and HB 965, and how are they related?
Together, HB 510 and HB 965 would extend RTW to every unionized worker in Ohio. Both would ban mandatory dues and fees.
HB 510 would make Ohio a RTW state for the private sector, prohibiting union security agreements that require private-sector workers to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment.
HB 965 is the public-sector counterpart. It amends certain provisions of Ohio’s Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act to eliminate fair-share fees for public employees. These are the fees that Ohio’s public-sector labor laws currently allow unions to charge non-member workers in a bargaining unit. It would also bar any public employer from agreeing to a contract that requires a public employee to join or pay an employee organization as a condition of employment.
How would HB 512 harm workers, communities, and taxpayers?
HB 512 takes away public authorities’ ability to require Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on certain public construction projects. PLAs are agreements made between construction unions and a project owner. They are important tools for guaranteeing skilled, trained workers and labor peace on public projects. They typically include provisions for apprenticeships, safety training, and standardized work rules across contractors and subcontractors on a job site.
PLAs are good for communities: They support onramps to good union jobs and prioritize local, well-trained laborers, especially on massive development projects that are largely funded by taxpayer dollars.
PLAs have been reported to “positively influence project timeliness, quality, safety, training, minority employment, employee benefits and labor peace.” Repealing Ohio’s PLA law would remove public authorities’ ability to require these standards as a condition of awarding a public contract. Doing so would harm working people in Ohio, stripping a critical tool workers use to bargain for fair conditions. That tool is especially important now, as data centers and other big-tech developments supercharge construction projects around the state.
How would HB 513 reduce pay and make worksites less safe?
HB 513 would permit local governments, special districts, and public colleges to opt out of Ohio’s prevailing wage law and would reduce the number of projects covered by these requirements, which include compensation and benefit rates that avoid undercutting workers. When prevailing wage laws set the baseline for wages and benefits, businesses compete based on quality instead of low labor costs. With that, greater productivity, safety, and overall standards usually follow.
Multiple state-level studies, including research in Ohio neighbors Indiana and West Virgina, found that wages for construction workers fell after repealing prevailing wage laws, without producing the public cost-savings promised by proponents.
Proponents of HB 513 argue that letting localities opt out of prevailing wage and raising its dollar threshold will lower public construction costs, but this has not happened in practice. Across the US, labor accounts for only about 23% of building costs. Ultimately, the savings are negligible and only undercut workers and their families. For example, after Indiana repealed its prevailing wage law, a state lawmaker who supported repeal later acknowledged the promised savings hadn’t materialized.
Communities that lose access to a skilled, locally trained workforce also risk lower-quality public work, more change orders, and project delays, all of which carry their own costs to taxpayers. Additionally, there is obvious toll on the families that these wages directly support along with impacts on local tax revenue.
How has SB 1 weakened workers’ bargaining position?
SB 1, sponsored by Sen. Jerry Cirino, is already law: Gov. DeWine signed it last year, and it took effect on June 27, 2025. The bill overhauled Ohio’s public education system and banned strikes by faculty at public universities and community colleges. It created a “retrenchment” provision that blocks faculty unions from bargaining over tenure, among other restrictions on what can be collectively bargained.
SB 1 restricts what public university faculty unions are allowed to bargain over and bans faculty strikes outright. Each is a different mechanism, but all work to give unions less leverage.
None of these bills are formally linked to the others — they target different sectors of the workforce — and they don’t technically qualify as RTW because they don’t change the dues and fees system. However, like RTW, they erode the solidarity and bargaining power all organized workers possess.
Taken together, the five bills would:
- Make union dues and fees optional for every unionized worker in Ohio (HB 510, H.B 965)
- Remove a tool public authorities use to guarantee skilled, trained labor and labor peace on public construction projects (HB 512)
- Shrink the share of public projects required to pay area-standard wages, and let individual localities opt out altogether (HB 513)
- As of June 2025, bar faculty strikes and block bargaining over tenure at Ohio’s public colleges and universities (SB 1)
How have Right-to-Work policies affected workers in other states?
As of 2026, 26 states currently have RTW laws. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “Data show that states with so-called ‘right-to-work’ (RTW) laws have lower unionization rates, wages, and benefits compared with non-RTW states.”
Between 2010 and 2023, RTW states lost union members at nearly twice the rate of non-RTW states: Union membership in RTW states fell 3.8 percentage points in that span, compared with only a 2.0-point decline in non-RTW states over the same period.
Decades of data show no relationship between job growth and RTW laws, undermining proponents’ common claim that weakening unions would somehow grow states’ economies.