Michigan’s so-called “right-to-work” measure officially went into effect today, just more than three months after Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the anti-union legislation into law. Snyder and Michigan Republicans have touted the law as a way to boost the state’s lagging economy, saying it would make it more competitive for businesses and a better place for workers.

Evidence from other right-to-work states, however, presents a far different case. Such laws cost all workers, union and otherwise, $1,500 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Those wage losses especially impact the middle class, and as a result, economic mobility between classes is stronger in union states. The following chart shows how states rank for relative economic mobility, which measures the percentage of residents starting in the bottom half of the national income distribution who move up 10 or more percentiles in a 10-year period. In the chart, 12 of the 13 states that outperform the national average for mobility are union states (including Michigan, which was a union state when the study was conducted), while 14 of the 15 that underperform are right-to-work states:

The Pew study did not attempt to find correlation between union membership and mobility, but it stands to reason that union membership plays a vital role in the difference. Union workers, as the Center for American Progress’ David Madland and Karla Walter found, are more likely to have health coverage and retirement plans. “If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” Madland and Walter wrote.

While Michigan’s law won’t benefit workers, it likely won’t help the state’s economy either. The Economic Policy Institute’s studies of right-to-work laws have found “that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth.”

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was happy to sign the union-busting “right-to-work” bill this week, saying that the law would help create jobs in his state. But in an interview with American Public Media on Thursday, Snyder was hard-pressed to give good reasons for why, exactly, the bill would inspire companies to move into Michigan and create new jobs.

Pressed by Marketplace Morning Report host Jeremy Hobson to explain what proof Snyder had that Michigan would see a job boom as a result of the law, the Governor cited neighboring Indiana’s recent job numbers as his only evidence:

SNYDER: This is about more and better jobs coming to Michigan. If you look at Indiana, they did similar legislation in February. And literally, thousands of new jobs are coming to Indiana where this was a major consideration in companies’ decision to move to that state.

HOBSON: Are you saying then that companies decided to go to Indiana, for example, because there’s less union membership in Indiana?

SNYDER: No, and I don’t want to speak for the companies but it is very clear that companies are looking at Indiana that previously did not. [...]

HOBSON: Well, make that connection though. You’re saying that, by not requiring workers to pay union dues, that therefore companies are going to be more attracted to the state. Why would that be?

SNYDER: Well, that’s a question for the companies but there is a strong sense, and companies do look at that. That’s something we’ve suffered here.[...]

HOBSON: Union membership has fallen dramatically in Michigan and across the country and it’s not as though that has translated into some boom in employment. I see the point you’re making, but it hasn’t been borne out in the evidence, has it?

SNYDER: Well, it’s been borne out in the Indiana case.

Listen:

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that right-to-work will cost all Michigan workers — not just those in unions — an average of $1,500 a year, and that there is “no relationship” between right-to-work laws and employment rates.

On Wednesday, the hosts MSNBC’s Morning Joe laughed off Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R-MI) claims that the state’s recently-enacted right-to-work law could protect and strengthen unions by encouraging them to show more value to workers, interrupting the governor in bewilderment as he explained his argument.

Snyder appeared on the show less than 12 hours after signing two separate bills allowing public and private union members to opt out of paying union dues, while benefiting from union contracts, and defended the controversial measures. He characterized the law as benefiting workers and unions become more valuable.

The answer shocked the Morning Joe crew and led MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe to interrupt the governor in mid-answer. Even Joe Scarborough grew incredulous and the Washington Post’s Carl Bernstein sighed heavily as Snyder spoke:

SNYDER: I’ve never said that unions are bad for business. And I don’t believe this is actually anti-union. If you look at it, I believe this is pro-worker, because the way I view it is, is workers now have freedom to choose …

WOLFFE: Hang on. Hang on a second. Are you serious? Are you serious? This is not anti-unions? This actually, at its core undermines the ability for unions to organize. So you can make any argument you like, but saying it’s not …

SNYDER: Unions have to be in a position to present a good value proposition… And if they don’t provide value, people shouldn’t be forced to pay for something they don’t see any value in. So again, this should make unions more effective in terms of having to put a value proposition to workers.

SCARBOROUGH: Governor, while I made a similar argument earlier that workers shouldn’t be compelled to have to pay from their salary to a union with whom they disagree, I would not go so far as to say what you’ve just said, which is that this helps unions. I mean, it undermines unions’ ability to stay vibrant, right?

BERNSTEIN: Absolutely!

SNYDER: It really leaves it up to the union to decide and innovate as to what their value proposition is….

BERNSTEIN: Come on!

Watch it:

Indeed, economic studies of right-to-work states show that workers tend to receive lower wages and smaller benefits than those in states with stronger unions.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that he had privately signed into law so-called “right-to-work” legislation, despite mass protests from unions. The measure would allow public and private union members to opt out of paying union dues, while benefiting from union contracts. It does not apply to existing union contracts.

Snyder attributed his sudden (and unexpected) push for the measure earlier last week to unions themselves, who unsuccessfully sought to pass a constitutional amendment (known as Proposition 2) voiding “existing and future laws restricting workers’ ability to organize unions, or to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions.” The governor argued that this failed effort divided the public and brought the issue to a head.

“I don’t believe we wouldn’t be standing here in this timeframe if it hadn’t been for Proposition 2 moving ahead,” Snyder said. “If you look at what clearly happened after the election, there was an extreme escalation in discussions on right-to-work that was very divisive. And so the divisiveness was there. And my view is, since it’s here, let’s step up, take some leadership, take a position and get an answer.” Union leaders and Democratic lawmakers, however, were surprised and caught off guard by Snyder’s sudden push for legislation, though the move that was supported by the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity.

Challenged by a reporter as to why he signed the right-to-work legislation behind closed doors, Snyder again faulted union organizers. “It’s one of those things, there were a number of people out protesting. So I don’t see the need to have a public ceremony to over-emphasize that.”

Michigan voters may now seek to repeal the bill through a state ballot initiative.