Mark Mix thinks Iowans don’t know the difference between a corporate shill and a fighter for the working class. Recently, Mix submitted an editorial (note – firewall) in which he tried to convince Iowans that Right to Work (for less) laws are actually good for workers, and that his preferred Senatorial candidate Ashley Hinson is the real hero for the working class. It would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so serious.

Mark is the President of the National Right to Work Committee, which is funded by the usual cast of billionaires; the Kochs, the Bradleys, the Waltons, etc. Those are the people and corporations that have famously made their fortunes off the backs of their over-worked and under-paid employees. These are the very corporations who have spent decades writing laws and exploiting loopholes that allow them to offer little to no benefits for their employees, and, in many cases, pay them so little that those workers receive government assistance.

These are the people carrying water for Ashley Hinson.

These are the people bankrolling Mark Mix.

These are the people who want you to believe Right to Work (for less) is a good deal for Iowans.

But rather than trade insults, or (as Mix does) offer exaggerated claims with no sources (or worse yet, cherry-picked sources taken out of context), let’s look at some documented facts. Unfortunately for Mix, we have sources.

Mix says, “Spendable incomes are, on average, significantly higher for residents of Right to Work states.” Not only does Mix neglect to provide a source, but he is wrong and also fails to take into account other factors that dramatically impact how spendable income can be used (such as providing workers and their families with benefits like health insurance and retirement rather than having to pay those out of pocket).

In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the average is the opposite. Data from September of 2026 shows that “workers in “right-to-work” (RTW) states experience lower wages and less access to health care, retirement, and other benefits. Even after controlling for other factors, workers in RTW states are paid 6.7% less on average than workers in non-RTW states.” Furthermore, “unionized workers are 32% more likely to have employment-provided health insurance and 30% more likely to have employment-provided retirement benefits than their non-union counterparts.”

Mix goes on and in an astonishing display of arrogance claims it is “well documented” that unionism has a negative impact on a state’s economic performance. Again, the opposite is in fact what is documented. Again, the EPI research indicates “prior studies have likewise shown no causal link between a state’s RTW status and job growth. For example, studies of Oklahoma after the state enacted RTW in 2001 found a significant reduction in private-sector unionization, but no measurable effect on employment growth. When studies have claimed to find such effects, it is often because they fail to control for other critical factors, such as education levels of the workforce, proximity to transportation hubs, technological advances, or natural resources.”

And let’s get to one of the central issues here. Right to Work states do not offer workers and their families any unique protections. Proponents like Mix will speak of workers being “forced” to join a union, as if Right to Work grants people some special autonomy or decision making ability they lacked previously. On this count as well, Mix misrepresents the facts. All workers already have the ability to freely choose whether to work at a unionized shop, and workers who take a union job then get to decide whether to become a union member. Contrary to common claims of anti-union groups that promote RTW laws, the primary goal of RTW laws is not to protect workers, but to weaken unions and limit workers’ collective power. The real threat to workers’ rights today is that labor laws have become too weak to protect against aggressive employer union busting; as a result, over 50 million workers who say they wish they had a union haven’t been able to get one.

In Iowa, like the rest of the country, prices are high, wages are stagnating, and unemployment is growing. The last thing working Iowans need right now is Ashley Hinson, Mark Mix, and others like them trying to convince us that less pay, fewer benefits, and worse working conditions will fix these problems. Iowans need a stronger voice in the workplace, not a weaker one.

Iowans deserve a Senator, at long last, who will actually stand up and fight for the rights and dignity of every worker across the state; a Senator who believes that, when you put more power in the hands of the working class instead of the billionaire class, “we the people” are more prosperous and our communities are stronger; a Senator who, crucially, believes that the people who build the roads should be able to afford to purchase the car and the gas to drive on them.

That person is Josh Tureck. And that’s why we endorse Josh for Senate, and it’s why working Iowans should as well.