Right-to-work-law (more Reliable).docx
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Right-to-work-law (more Reliable).docx as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 6,793
- Pages: 7
Right-to-work law WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica See Article History Right-to-work law, in the United States, any state law forbidding various unionsecurity measures, particularly the union shop, under which workers are required to join a union within a specified time after they begin employment. The Taft– Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed not the union shop but the closed shop (which can hire union members only) everywhere in the United States. But section 14(b) of the act did encourage the passage of state right-to-work laws by allowing state laws against union-security measures to supersede the federal law. The strongest support of right-to-work laws generally has come from small business; the 19 states with right-to-work laws in 1966 were concentrated in the South and West and did not include any major industrial state. Indiana was the only industrial state to pass a right-to-work law, but it repealed it in 1965. Right-to-work laws have periodically become important political issues; in 1966 the Lyndon B. Johnson administration attempted to eliminate such laws by seeking repeal of section 14(b); the effort was thwarted in the Senate with a filibuster led by Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Supporters of right-to-work laws maintain that they guarantee a person’s right to work without being forced to join a union. In addition, they argue that such laws do not weaken the bargaining power of unions but merely permit a worker to bargain on an individual basis if he so chooses. Opponents contend that the name right-to-work law is misleading because such laws do not guarantee tend to employment to anyone. On the contrary, they maintain that such laws reduce workers’ job security by weakening the bargaining power of unions.
Lawmakers vote to ban local ‘right-to-work’ laws
“I don’t think I’m above them or better than them,” Sanchez said of the local officials in his district. Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, an Albuquerque Democrat who supported the bill, argued that she was being consistent, too, by supporting anti-poverty legislation. “My consistency is doing everything we can to alleviate poverty in this state,” she said, “and that’s what unions have done around the country and what they have done in this state.” The proposal, House Bill 85, was cosponsored by Democratic Reps. Daymon Ely of Corrales and Andrea Romero of Santa Fe. It passed the House in February, and the Senate approval will send it to Lujan Grisham, a Democrat. Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this article. Evers Takes Aim at Right-to-Work Law, Seeks Prevailing-Wage Protections
BY: Michael Carroll Watchdog.org March 11, 2019 4:55 am Gov. Tony Evers has called for the repeal of Wisconsin's right-to-work law and the restoration of prevailing-wage guarantees in public-works projects, despite critics' concerns that those proposals could become a drag on the state's economy.
BY DAN MCKAY / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Published: Sunday, March 10th, 2019 at 7:51pm Updated: Sunday, March 10th, 2019 at 10:53pm
The governor's February budget blueprint supports the elimination of the state's right-to-work statute, which restricts private employers from entering into agreements that compel union membership as a condition of employment or mandating the payment of dues to a labor union.
SANTA FE – A proposal that would bar New Mexico counties from enforcing local “right-to-work” ordinances is on its way to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Evers also supports the restoration of the prevailing wage on state and local public-works projects to ensure that workers are not underpaid in comparison to employees performing similar tasks in the region.
The state Senate voted 23-19 on Sunday to approve legislation stipulating that only the state government can establish a law barring labor unions from collecting fees from nonunion members in unionized workplaces. Approval comes after about 10 counties adopted their own right-to-work laws – at least one of which has triggered a legal challenge. Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces Democrat who presented the bill Sunday, said local governments are already prohibited from adopting those ordinances. But the state legislation will make it clear to counties and cities that the state itself is the only authority on right-to-work proposals. “This is about avoidance of litigation,” Cervantes said.
Among the groups expressing concerns about the new Democratic governor's proposals is Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin, whose state director said the proposals would overturn protections on worker freedom and increase the cost of doing business in Wisconsin. "Wisconsin's economy is roaring because of numerous pro-growth reforms over the last decade, but the labor reforms in this budget put that growth at risk," Eric Bott said in a prepared statement. Not only would repeal of the right-to-work law limit worker choices about union affiliation, but it could be a drag on the state's ability to attract job creators, he said.
But opponents of the measure said it’s another example of state lawmakers ignoring elected officials in more-conservative, rural areas.
"Right to work lets Wisconsinites keep more of their paycheck, so that they can invest their hard-earned money in the things most important to them, like their families, local businesses and communities," Bott said in an email.
“Not everybody up here knows what’s best for some of our communities,” Sen. Gay Kernan, R-Hobbs, said. “Our areas are sick and tired of it.”
And Evers' support for a prevailing wage would be a bad deal for taxpayers, he said.
The vote was largely along party lines. Three Democrats – Clemente “Meme” Sanchez of Grants, Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces and John Arthur Smith of Deming – opposed the bill, joining all 16 Republicans.
"The governor is supposed to stretch our tax dollars, not shrink them," Botts said. "Restoring prevailing wage would drive up the cost of every public-works project and pass those costs on to taxpayers. … Let's be clear, this doesn't benefit the average Wisconsinite. This benefits special interests."
Sanchez said he was being consistent – because he hasn’t pushed to pre-empt local governments from setting their own minimum wages.
Frank Emspak, a former professor at the University of Wisconsin Extension's Department of Labor Education-School for Workers, doesn't expect Evers' effort to repeal right to work to be embraced by the majority of state lawmakers.
"Given the nature of the state legislature at this point, a repeal is probably not going to happen because Republicans control the legislature, and they are very much opposed to the repeal," Emspak told Watchdog.org. There is no established link between the right-to-work issue and decisions by companies to invest in the state, he said. In the case of a heavy goods manufacturer that uses industrial machinery, labor costs represent only 5 to 7 percent of the cost of doing business, according to Emspak. A more significant issue is land acquisition and the cost of borrowing money, he said. "The effect of the right-to-work law in Wisconsin has been pretty marginal," Emspak said. Foxconn, which is building a sprawling electronics facility in southwestern Wisconsin, agreed to locate its campus in the state not because of right to work but because of $3 billion in tax advantages negotiated by the previous governor, he said. Restoring the prevailing wage would be helpful to both the construction industry and the employees who work in it, according to Emspak. Allowing companies with public-works contracts to pay their workers less than their counterparts in a region means those firms are undercutting the competition by cutting labor costs, which in turn drives down wages and working conditions, he said. Having the prevailing wage in place means the construction companies would be in a better position to focus on providing high-quality, skilled work at a competitive cost, according to Emspak. Labor union officials generally support Evers' proposals. Stephanie Bloomingdale, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said Evers' budget blueprint strikes the right note for workers and the state's economy. "The repeal of right to work is a step towards a healthier middle class with strong union rights," Bloomingdale said in a prepared statement. "Restoring prevailing wage and the right to a project labor agreement will grow our economy with family-supporting jobs while ensuring tour construction projects are completed safely on time and on budget."
Bill voids local ‘right-to-work’ measures, backing unions By Andrew Oxford and Milan Simonich | [email protected] | [email protected]
New Mexico is not what is known as a “right-to-work” state, and the Legislature drove home that point Sunday night. The Senate voted 23-19 to approve House Bill 85, which permits employers and labor organizations in New Mexico to enter into agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. Now the measure goes to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who’s well aware that 10 of the state’s 33 counties have adopted so-called right-to-work laws that say employees cannot be compelled to pay fees to a labor union that represents them on the job. The Senate struck back by approving the bill that strikes down these local measures. In some ways, the bill is as symbolic as the the city and county ordinances it seeks to void, merely reaffirming New Mexico’s labor laws. But Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, said the Legislature’s role in approving the bill tells city and county governments they do not have the power to authorize right-to-work laws any more than they could cut the tax rate for corporations. The power in both cases rests with the state government, Cervantes said. More important, Cervantes said, the Legislature is helping cities and counties avoid being sued because they have created laws that exceed the scope of their authority. Still, the debate on the Senate floor opened some fissures between Democrats and between urban and rural lawmakers.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, however, contends that right-to-work states have seen greater economic growth than states with no rightto-work laws. Right-to-work states recorded an 8.8 percent growth in employment between 2007 and 2017, while job growth over the same period in other states was 4.2 percent, the Virginia institute reported.
All 16 Republicans and three Democrats backed the efforts of a political organization called Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has pressed for the local laws in select parts of the state.
And manufacturing employment grew by 5.5 percent in right-to-work states during that time period, compared to 1.7 percent for states without right-to-work laws, according to the institute's numbers.
Sen. Greg Baca, R-Belen, said House Bill 85 tells those communities that their views don’t matter and would amount to Santa Fe wielding a heavy hand over the rest of the state.
Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Poverty, says the idea of forcing workers to accept and pay for union membership is an affront to workers' freedoms.
Republicans and industry groups have usually backed such ordinances, arguing that loosening laws on labor unions would help draw business to the state.
"This harms workers in Wisconsin and harms our state's economy overall by putting us at a massive disadvantage to attract businesses here," Vebber told Watchdog.org in an email.
Moreover, Republicans argued these laws would only be fair, as they would give workers a broader choice on whether to align with a union.
And the concept of a prevailing wage is antiquated and forces taxpayers to support above-market wages in construction projects, he said.
Even some Democrats suggested the Legislature should leave debates about union fees to local governments.
"Wisconsin was right to have eliminated it just a few years ago, and the governor's proposal to bring it back will do nothing but drive up the cost of government projects, harming taxpayers and ultimately our state's economy as a whole," Vebber said.
“We need to let those governments do their job,” said Sen. Clemente Sanchez of Grants, one of the Democrats who voted against the bill.
The others were Sens. John Arthur Smith of Deming and Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces. And Sen. Jacob Candelaria, D-Albuquerque, said early in debate over the bill that he had not heard a principled explanation of why the Legislature should override the will of local governments. Cervantes had a fast reply. He said the 10 counties that approved right-to-work laws will squander taxpayers’ money on the lawsuits they have invited. He pointed to an attorney general’s opinion and a federal court decision as evidence that the local governments cannot win in court. Candelaria was persuaded. He voted for the bill. Other Democrats said so-called right-to-work laws are not about boosting economies but undercutting workers’ wages. Sen. Bill Tallman, D-Albuquerque, argued the state’s lagging economy has to do with many problems other than labor laws, from crime to poverty. It’s a myth that right-to-work laws make a state’s economy better, Tallman said. “I wish it were that simple,” he said, adding that the laws weaken unions and depress wages. Today, about 8 percent of New Mexico workers are represented by labor unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s on the low end when compared to other states but higher than New Mexico’s immediate neighbors, except for Colorado, where 12 percent of workers are represented by unions. Right-to-Work Law REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON
the right-to-work law, giving employees the choice to associate with union parties. States without right-to-work laws require employees to pay union dues and fees as a term for employment. While labor unions are still fully operative in right-towork states, the law protects these states’ employees by making payment of union fees an elective decision not bound to the employees’ employment contracts. States that enact the right-to-work laws make mandatory union contracts illegal while giving workers in unionized settings the advantage of benefiting from the terms of a union contract without having to pay dues. In a bid to protect the Freedom of Association clause, proponents of the right-towork law agree that workers shouldn’t be obliged to join a union if they are not interested. These supporters believe that states with the right-to-work law attract more businesses than states without. This is because companies would rather function in an environment where workplace disputes or threats of labor strikes would not interrupt their daily business operations. If these companies establish their bases in right-to-work states, workers would also migrate to these states. Advocates of the law agree that right-to-work states have a higher employment rate, after-tax income for employees, population growth, foreign direct investment(FDI) and a lower cost of living than states that have not implemented this law. Critics state that right-to-work state workers actually earn lower wages compared to the other states. Because right-to-work states have a lower cost of living, employees are paid lower nominal wages than what employees in states without this law are paid. Opponents argue that since federal law requires unions to represent all workers, regardless of whether they pay union dues, free riders are encouraged to benefit from union services at no cost to them. This would increase the cost of operating and maintaining a union organization. In addition, if businesses are given the choice to do without unions, this would lower the safety standards set in place for their employees. By making it harder for unions to operate and represent workers, economic inequality will be exacerbated and corporate power over employees will increase significantly. In 2017, Congress introduced the National Right to Work Act that would give employees nationwide the choice to opt out of joining or paying dues to unions. Compare Popular Online Brokers Provider Name
Updated May 7, 2018
Description
What is the Right-to-Work Law The right-to-work law is a fundamental law that allows workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union in the workplace. The right-to-work law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.
Advertiser Disclosure
Also known as Workplace Freedom or Workplace Choice.
more
BREAKING DOWN Right-to-Work Law In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), or the Wagner Act, was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. The Act protected the rights of employees to create a self-organization and mandated employers to engage in collective bargaining and employment negotiations with these selforganizations called labor unions. Employees were also compelled to pay the union for representing and protecting their interests. The NLRA required union membership as a condition for employment, thereby, restricting employment to union members only. History of the Right-to-Work Law President Harry Truman in 1947, amended parts of the NLRA when he passed the Taft-Harley Act. This Act created the right-to-work law which allows states to prohibit compulsory membership with a union as a condition for employment in the public and private sectors of the country. Currently, 28 states have passed
Related Terms Right of Egress The right of egress is the legal right to exit or leave a property and is usually applied in conjunction with the right of ingress.
Unofficial Strike An unofficial strike is a work stoppage by union members that is not endorsed by the union and that does not follow the legal requirements for striking. more Organized Labor Organized labor is an association that engages in collective bargaining for improving workers' economic status and working conditions. more Martial Law
Martial law is a law administered by the military rather than a civilian government which may be declared in an emergency or in response to a crisis. more Usury Laws Usury laws are regulations governing the amount of interest that can be charged on a loan for the sake of protecting borrowers. more Administrative Law Administrative law is the body of law that governs the regulation of government agencies at federal and state levels. “Right to work” is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union. The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union. The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and collective bargaining...”
Martin Luther King Jr. Right-to-Work Laws: Myth vs. Fact December 12, 2014 James Sherk @JamesBSherk Research Fellow, Labor Economics As research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, James Sherk researched ways to promote competition and mobility. Copied Select a Section 1/0 Many states and local governments are considering right-to-work laws. These laws make union dues voluntary. Without them, union contracts make paying dues a condition of employment. While most Americans support the concept of right-to-work, unions argue strenuously against them. However, most of the arguments against right-to-work have little basis in fact. Myth: Right-to-work laws prohibit unions. Fact: Right-to-work laws make union dues voluntary. Without right-to-work laws, unions negotiate contracts that force workers to pay dues or get fired. Rightto-work laws protect workers’ freedom. The National Labor Relations Act also protects the right of workers in right-to-work states to unionize. Unions currently represent 4.4 million workers in 24 right-to-work states, including highly unionized Nevada, Iowa, and Michigan.[1] Myth: Right-to-work laws undermine unions.
Fact: Right-to-work laws make unions work to earn workers’ support. In the long run, this can strengthen union locals. Without right-to-work laws, unions can take their members’ dues for granted and provide lower quality representation. Gary Casteel, the Southern region director for the United Auto Workers, explains: This is something I’ve never understood, that people think right to work hurts unions. To me, it helps them. You don’t have to belong if you don’t want to. So if I go to an organizing drive, I can tell these workers, “If you don’t like this arrangement, you don’t have to belong.” Versus, “If we get 50 percent of you, then all of you have to belong, whether you like to or not.” I don’t even like the way that sounds, because it’s a voluntary system, and if you don’t think the system’s earning its keep, then you don’t have to pay.[2] Myth: Right-to-work laws allow non-union members to “free ride” on the benefits of union representation without paying its cost. Fact: Unions voluntarily represent non-members. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the National Labor Relations Act allows unions to negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized.”[3] Unions represent non-members only when they act as “exclusive bargaining representatives,” which requires non-members to accept the union’s representation. In that case, the law requires unions to represent nonmembers fairly. They cannot negotiate high wages for their supporters and the minimum wage for non-members. Unions can avoid representing non-members by disclaiming exclusive representative status. Myth: Representing non-members costs exclusive representative unions a lot of money. Fact: Unions often spend little on representational activities. When unions choose to act as exclusive bargaining representatives, they often spend relatively little on processing grievances and negotiating contracts. Often union contracts have employers cover these costs by allowing union stewards to do union business while on company time. As a result, many union locals spend very little representing workers—either members or non-members. Federal filings reveal that in 2013 United Auto Workers Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, spent just 2 percent of its $560,000 budget on representational activities.[4] Boilermakers Local 107 in Brookfield, Wisconsin, spent 5 percent of its $2.0 million budget on representational activities.[5] Machinists Lodge 2515 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, spent 23 percent of its $645,000 budget on representational activities—almost all of which constituted payments to its officers.[6] Myth: Right-to-work laws provide no economic benefits. Fact: Companies consider right-to-work laws a major factor when deciding where to locate. Organizing victories bring in a lot more money for a union in jurisdictions with compulsory dues. Consequently, unions organize more aggressively in places without right-to-work laws.[7] Companies in turn want to know they can avoid being targeted by union organizers if they treat their workers well. Right-to-work laws make that more likely. Economic development consultants report that roughly half of all major businesses refuse to consider locating in jurisdictions with compulsory dues.[8] Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that between 1990 and 2014 total employment grew more than twice as fast in right-to-work states as in states with compulsory dues.[9] Myth: Right-to-work laws lower wages. Fact: Workers have the same or higher buying power in right-to-work states.Opponents often deride voluntary dues as “right-to-work for less.” Average wages in right-to-work states are indeed slightly lower than in non-right-to-work states. This occurs because almost every Southern state has a right-to-work law and the South has a lower cost of living. Studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and
possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.[10]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Myth: Right-to-work laws divide Americans.
The Indiana legislature recently approved a “right to work” law, the 23rd of its kind in the United States.
Fact: Americans overwhelmingly support right-to-work laws. Recent Gallup polling finds Americans support right-to-work laws by a 71 percent to 22 percent margin—better than 3 to 1. Independents support right-to-work laws 77 percent to 17 percent, Republicans support them 74 percent to 18 percent, and Democrats support them 65 percent to 30 percent.[11] Polling also shows that union members themselves support voluntary dues by an 80 percent to 17 percent margin.[12]Voters also reward politicians who support voluntary dues at the polls. Not a single Michigan legislator who voted for right-to-work laws in 2012 lost in the next general election. Right-to-work laws remain controversial primarily among union officers—not the general public. The arguments against right-to-work laws do not withstand scrutiny. Right-towork laws give workers a choice over where their money goes. This freedom forces unions to earn their members’ support. It also attracts businesses and jobs. The law should not force anyone in America to pay union dues as a condition of employment. —James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics, in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Why unions are so worried about right-to-work laws By Jana Kasperkevic
A “union shop” agreement between an employer and a union commits the employer to ensuring that new hires join the union within a specified period. Rightto-work laws ban union-shop agreements. Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract. If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the Indiana legislature the right to interfere? Employers own the wages they will pay and the sites where work will be performed under such contracts. So it’s their right to dispense the wages and make the sites available specifically to union members, just as it’s their right, more generally, to trade with anyone they choose. When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another.
February 24, 2017 | 11:20 AM Labor union members protest Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's proposed budget cuts in April 2011. - Bill Pugliano/Getty Images A national right-to-work bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, and though previous attempts have failed, a Republican-controlled Congress and White House means a law is a real possibility. And that’s a threat to labor unions, who are dependent on the dues that such a law would curtail. “Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever before,” Leacy Burke, a spokeswoman for South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, told the Huffington Post. Even if the bill should fail, more than half of the states have enacted their own right-to-work legislation, and a handful more have introduced bills. As U.S. lawmakers gear up for a right-to-work debate, here’s a quick overview of the issue. What is right to work? Right-to-work laws prohibit labor unions and employers from requiring workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. This means that employees who work at a unionized workplace and do not support the union or do not want to be part of the union can opt out of paying dues. In states that are not right-to-work states, workers hired at a unionized workplace can be required to join a union and pay union dues. Why is this important? First of all, money. Union dues can add up to a few hundred dollars a year per person. For example, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) describes its monthly dues as being equivalent to about two hours’ worth of pay, or $50. Dues differ from union to union, and each union determines how to use its funds differently. In addition to spending dues on maintaining the union and negotiating contracts, unions can also use the funds for awareness campaigns on pending legislation, proposed bills and to build up a strike fund, which could be used to support workers if they opt to go on the strike. Another — and arguably the most controversial — budget item for labor unions is political campaign donations. This brings us to the second reason why right to work is an important issue: power and influence. What’s Wrong with Right-to-Work
And there’s no principled way to draw a sharp line here: Once it’s okay for a legislature to interfere with bargaining in this way, there’s no stopping politicians from setting wages and prices, or requiring or prohibiting the hiring of particular people. Supporting a free society means embracing people’s freedom to form unions. And it means acknowledging that unions—and union-shop agreements—can offer both workers and employers something valuable. Unions can help to secure workers predictable terms of employment and protect them against arbitrary dismissal. And a union contract can help make workplaces more predictable for employers, ensure that information is disseminated to workers, and reduce a variety of workplace transaction costs. Proponents of right-to-work laws defend them on several grounds:
The laws lower wage costs, and thus consumer prices. The laws benefit workers in non-unionized workplaces, who will earn less in their absence. The laws give particular workers opportunities to negotiate for better, or different, terms of employment. It’s not the job of the government to interfere with free agreements to lower costs or boost incomes. Presumably the government could force lots of people to work for no wages at all. That would also do what right-to-work laws do, albeit much more dramatically: It would treat people as slaves. The same would be true if it mandated wages for everyone.
All that people need in order to negotiate for themselves is freedom of contract. (Of course, sometimes they might not be able to do so if an employer is bound by a union contract that prohibits individual negotiations. But if the contract is a voluntary one, the government has no business interfering with it.)
Big businesses that supported the emergence of modern labor law liked the fact that it had the potential to keep unions tame and manageable, ensuring that they would operate within a predefined legal framework in order to enjoy legal privileges. (This is not to say that everything worked out exactly as the corporate elite would have liked.)
U.S. Labor-Law Background
It should be no surprise, then, that viewed as a package, existing labor law limits workers’ options. For instance, since bargaining is required only when a union enjoys majority support, a union that represents a significant fraction of employees—but not a majority—will tend to be treated as irrelevant.
Defenders of right-to-work laws also sometimes point to the background laborlaw framework in the United States as a justification for these laws. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and its successors established a system that requires an employer to bargain with a union enjoying majority support in a given workplace. Right-to-work proponents argue that the laws they favor only help to level the playing field created by government action—by reining in special privileges granted to unions under existing labor law. But those laws actually presuppose the restrictions inherent in that framework, while extending them further. One goal of the NLRA and later federal laws was to reduce conflict—and in effect reduce workers’ choices—by ensuring that just one union, moderate enough to win majority support (and therefore moderate enough to be cooperative with employers), would operate in a given workplace, while suppressing more radical unions and labor actions. If right-to-work laws were really about individual freedom, they would simply allow unions to represent voluntary dues-paying members only while respecting employers’ right to recognize or not recognize unions. In other words, the laws would permit states to opt out of federal labor law entirely—and nothing more. But these laws do much more, perhaps because allowing this kind of flexibility and variety would undermine the interests of politically influential employers by unshackling upstart competitors.
Right-to-work laws typically assume, as does the federal labor-law framework, that if workers are represented at all, they’ll all be represented by one union—a single, certified bargaining agent. One practical effect of this arrangement is to undermine “minority unionism”—labor action by any number of workers acting on their own behalf, functioning as a bargaining unit without official certification. The practical effect is to reduce flexibility for workers and to ensure that they have to choose between an established union or no representation at all. Other aspects of the existing legal framework are troubling, too. Legal rules that let courts order workers back to work treat workers as slaves, as the State’s property. A secondary boycott—a work action in which one group of workers refuses to work with or for an employer involved in a dispute with another group of workers— can be a powerful, nonviolent tool for achieving workplace goals. But current law bans secondary boycotts and “sympathy strikes,” as well as strikes across plants or industries, again treating workers as slaves.
Of course, laws that respected freedom of contract wouldn’t mandate particular bargaining rules. Just laws would protect people from violence and leave them free to work out the arrangements that make sense to them. There’s nothing sacred about the existing labor-law framework. In a free society bargaining over employment terms wouldn’t be constrained by anything like the NLRA. As Freeman contributor Percy L. Greaves, Jr., wrotein a tribute to Ludwig von Mises: “[T]he agitators for ‘right-to-work’ laws forget . . . that the problem is basically one of getting the government out of moral business transactions and not into them. . . . The economic answer is to repeal the bad intervention and not try to counterbalance it with another bad intervention.”
Existing laws provide for “cooling-off” periods before strikes can proceed. They require arbitration of some labor disputes, denying workers access to the courts, and precluding continued, tough negotiation. They encourage collective bargaining to focus just on some fairly specific issues related to the terms of employment rather than broader workplace concerns like plant closings and governance. They rule out contracts that require hiring-hall arrangements in which unions funnel new workers to employers. They even allow a U.S. president to decree an end to a strike. The existing labor-law regime is designed to tame workers in the interests of “industrial peace,” not to promote their interests.
The NLRA framework wasn’t created out of sheer benevolence. Rather, the historical record shows, big businesses wanted something like it because they thought it would reduce conflict and increase costs for their competitors.
So, by all means, repeal the NLRA and all the state right-to-work laws. The government needs to get out of the labor-law business. It needs to respect freedom of contract.
Even when union activity was legally disfavored, or actually illegal, unions like the Industrial Workers of the World won contract victories with strikes and work slowdowns. The eight-hour working day, for instance, wasn’t a gift from benevolent politicians: It was an achievement of union struggles that took place well before the Wagner Act framework was in place.
But don’t stop there. Eliminate the full range of privileges and restrictions that boost employers’ influence over people’s terms of employment. For instance: Get rid of the rules that reduce the available alternatives to paid employment by raising the costs of working for yourself—rules like occupational licensing requirements and zoning codes that keep people from running businesses from their homes. And eliminate rules that make self-employment riskier by raising the cost of living—like building and zoning codes, and rent control and land-use controls that limit the availability of housing—and that therefore channel people into the predictable, even if less appealing, world of work for wages. People who have other options can afford to bargain for good terms. It’s also important, therefore, to remove the various restraints that limit the number of startup businesses: The more employers there are, the more competition there will be for labor, and the better the terms will be for those who choose to work for others.
Years before the New Deal, big, politically influential businesses wanted to diminish conflict, increase predictability, and reduce the appeal of radical unions. So they supported federal labor legislation, and some contributed to the development of the approach embodied in the NLRA. Although most of the corporate elite was unhappy with the NLRA as written, key business figures cooperated with the secretary of labor to implement it, hoping the law would help to handle grievances and prevent instability in the workplace.
To the extent that right-to-work laws might seem to make sense as mechanisms for dealing with union abuses, the solution is to eliminate the whole body of modern labor legislation. Unions have shown they don’t need it, even in the unfreed market we have today. And in a genuinely freed market, workers would find it significantly easier than they do at present to work for themselves, to say no to abusive work environments, and so to bargain effectively for appealing wages and working conditions and opportunities to direct their workplaces. They certainly wouldn’t need the NLRA.
Right-to-Work Laws
Right-to-work laws limit workers’ and employers’ freedom of contract. They prevent workers and employers from making mutually beneficial agreements. They don’t belong in a free society.
Taft-Hartley requires that all employees at a company must receive the same benefits of union activity whether or not they belong to the union. For example, if a union negotiates a pay raise for its members, the employer must give the same pay raise to its non-union employees. In many industries, non-union employees are required to pay an "agency fee" as compensation for the union benefits ensured by Taft-Hartley. However, they are not required to pay for the union's political activities—fees that are included in the regular dues for union members.
The author thanks Kevin Carson, James Tuttle, Tom Knapp, Keith Taylor, Tennyson McCalla, and Sheldon Richman for comments on earlier drafts of this article.
The Right-to-Work Debate
Gary Chartier Gary Chartier is a professor of law and business ethics and associate dean of the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University in Riverside, California. He is the author of Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society, published by Cambridge University Press. Pros and Cons of Right to Work Right-to-Work Laws vs. Right to Work Without Union Fees BY JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Updated September 28, 2018 Right-to-work laws have been enacted by more than half of the U.S.states. These laws should not be confused with the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that require union membership for employees. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, employees have the same right to employment whether or not they are members of a union. However, the Act does allow for unions to require that non-union employees pay for nonpolitical union initiatives from which all employees may benefit. Right-to-work laws enacted by states prohibit this payment requirement in certain industries. The Taft-Hartley Act Passed in 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act remains the cornerstone of United States labor law today. This act amended the Wagner Act of 1935, which reflects the attitudes of post-World War II America towards labor. Due to "national emergency" strikes during the war, postwar strikes, and the advantages given to unions by the Wagner Act, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the Act in an attempt to restore the balance of power between labor and management. The Act restricts the activities of unions in four ways by: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Prohibiting unfair labor practices by unions Listing the rights of employees who are union members Listing the rights of employers Empowering the president of the United States to suspend labor strikes that may constitute a national emergency
Many argue that the Taft-Hartley Act is the original "right-to-work" law because it ensures that prospective employees cannot be barred from employment if they choose not to belong to a union. Therefore, the right to work is not an issue. The true bone of contention in the right-to-work debate is whether non-union employees should be forced to pay fees for some union activity, such as collective bargaining and union protection, from which they may benefit.
In the current political climate, right-to-work laws aim to bar employers or unions from requiring payment of any union-related fees from non-union employees. Supporters of the laws argue that requiring payments inhibits economic growth and can make some companies or industries less attractive to prospective employees. They also feel that forcing workers to pay fees simply because they work in an industry or company with a strong union presence is an infringement on their freedom. Opponents of right-to-work laws affirm that it's unfair for non-union employees to reap the benefits of union activity without paying fees, while their fellow employees who belong to the union support that same activity with their union dues. On a larger political level, it is argued that right-to-work laws diminish the influence and financial power of unions and therefore the unions can provide less support for political candidates and initiatives. Because unions typically support Democratic politicians, many believe that right-to-work laws (which are typically backed by Republicans) are aimed at weakening support for Democrats, particularly at the state level.
Right-to-work law WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica See Article History Right-to-work law, in the United States, any state law forbidding various unionsecurity measures, particularly the union shop, under which workers are required to join a union within a specified time after they begin employment. The Taft– Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed not the union shop but the closed shop (which can hire union members only) everywhere in the United States. But section 14(b) of the act did encourage the passage of state right-to-work laws by allowing state laws against union-security measures to supersede the federal law. The strongest support of right-to-work laws generally has come from small business; the 19 states with right-to-work laws in 1966 were concentrated in the South and West and did not include any major industrial state. Indiana was the only industrial state to pass a right-to-work law, but it repealed it in 1965. Right-to-work laws have periodically become important political issues; in 1966 the Lyndon B. Johnson administration attempted to eliminate such laws by seeking repeal of section 14(b); the effort was thwarted in the Senate with a filibuster led by Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. Supporters of right-to-work laws maintain that they guarantee a person’s right to work without being forced to join a union. In addition, they argue that such laws do not weaken the bargaining power of unions but merely permit a worker to bargain on an individual basis if he so chooses. Opponents contend that the name right-to-work law is misleading because such laws do not guarantee tend to employment to anyone. On the contrary, they maintain that such laws reduce workers’ job security by weakening the bargaining power of unions.
Lawmakers vote to ban local ‘right-to-work’ laws
“I don’t think I’m above them or better than them,” Sanchez said of the local officials in his district. Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, an Albuquerque Democrat who supported the bill, argued that she was being consistent, too, by supporting anti-poverty legislation. “My consistency is doing everything we can to alleviate poverty in this state,” she said, “and that’s what unions have done around the country and what they have done in this state.” The proposal, House Bill 85, was cosponsored by Democratic Reps. Daymon Ely of Corrales and Andrea Romero of Santa Fe. It passed the House in February, and the Senate approval will send it to Lujan Grisham, a Democrat. Journal Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Boyd contributed to this article. Evers Takes Aim at Right-to-Work Law, Seeks Prevailing-Wage Protections
BY: Michael Carroll Watchdog.org March 11, 2019 4:55 am Gov. Tony Evers has called for the repeal of Wisconsin's right-to-work law and the restoration of prevailing-wage guarantees in public-works projects, despite critics' concerns that those proposals could become a drag on the state's economy.
BY DAN MCKAY / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Published: Sunday, March 10th, 2019 at 7:51pm Updated: Sunday, March 10th, 2019 at 10:53pm
The governor's February budget blueprint supports the elimination of the state's right-to-work statute, which restricts private employers from entering into agreements that compel union membership as a condition of employment or mandating the payment of dues to a labor union.
SANTA FE – A proposal that would bar New Mexico counties from enforcing local “right-to-work” ordinances is on its way to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Evers also supports the restoration of the prevailing wage on state and local public-works projects to ensure that workers are not underpaid in comparison to employees performing similar tasks in the region.
The state Senate voted 23-19 on Sunday to approve legislation stipulating that only the state government can establish a law barring labor unions from collecting fees from nonunion members in unionized workplaces. Approval comes after about 10 counties adopted their own right-to-work laws – at least one of which has triggered a legal challenge. Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces Democrat who presented the bill Sunday, said local governments are already prohibited from adopting those ordinances. But the state legislation will make it clear to counties and cities that the state itself is the only authority on right-to-work proposals. “This is about avoidance of litigation,” Cervantes said.
Among the groups expressing concerns about the new Democratic governor's proposals is Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin, whose state director said the proposals would overturn protections on worker freedom and increase the cost of doing business in Wisconsin. "Wisconsin's economy is roaring because of numerous pro-growth reforms over the last decade, but the labor reforms in this budget put that growth at risk," Eric Bott said in a prepared statement. Not only would repeal of the right-to-work law limit worker choices about union affiliation, but it could be a drag on the state's ability to attract job creators, he said.
But opponents of the measure said it’s another example of state lawmakers ignoring elected officials in more-conservative, rural areas.
"Right to work lets Wisconsinites keep more of their paycheck, so that they can invest their hard-earned money in the things most important to them, like their families, local businesses and communities," Bott said in an email.
“Not everybody up here knows what’s best for some of our communities,” Sen. Gay Kernan, R-Hobbs, said. “Our areas are sick and tired of it.”
And Evers' support for a prevailing wage would be a bad deal for taxpayers, he said.
The vote was largely along party lines. Three Democrats – Clemente “Meme” Sanchez of Grants, Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces and John Arthur Smith of Deming – opposed the bill, joining all 16 Republicans.
"The governor is supposed to stretch our tax dollars, not shrink them," Botts said. "Restoring prevailing wage would drive up the cost of every public-works project and pass those costs on to taxpayers. … Let's be clear, this doesn't benefit the average Wisconsinite. This benefits special interests."
Sanchez said he was being consistent – because he hasn’t pushed to pre-empt local governments from setting their own minimum wages.
Frank Emspak, a former professor at the University of Wisconsin Extension's Department of Labor Education-School for Workers, doesn't expect Evers' effort to repeal right to work to be embraced by the majority of state lawmakers.
"Given the nature of the state legislature at this point, a repeal is probably not going to happen because Republicans control the legislature, and they are very much opposed to the repeal," Emspak told Watchdog.org. There is no established link between the right-to-work issue and decisions by companies to invest in the state, he said. In the case of a heavy goods manufacturer that uses industrial machinery, labor costs represent only 5 to 7 percent of the cost of doing business, according to Emspak. A more significant issue is land acquisition and the cost of borrowing money, he said. "The effect of the right-to-work law in Wisconsin has been pretty marginal," Emspak said. Foxconn, which is building a sprawling electronics facility in southwestern Wisconsin, agreed to locate its campus in the state not because of right to work but because of $3 billion in tax advantages negotiated by the previous governor, he said. Restoring the prevailing wage would be helpful to both the construction industry and the employees who work in it, according to Emspak. Allowing companies with public-works contracts to pay their workers less than their counterparts in a region means those firms are undercutting the competition by cutting labor costs, which in turn drives down wages and working conditions, he said. Having the prevailing wage in place means the construction companies would be in a better position to focus on providing high-quality, skilled work at a competitive cost, according to Emspak. Labor union officials generally support Evers' proposals. Stephanie Bloomingdale, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said Evers' budget blueprint strikes the right note for workers and the state's economy. "The repeal of right to work is a step towards a healthier middle class with strong union rights," Bloomingdale said in a prepared statement. "Restoring prevailing wage and the right to a project labor agreement will grow our economy with family-supporting jobs while ensuring tour construction projects are completed safely on time and on budget."
Bill voids local ‘right-to-work’ measures, backing unions By Andrew Oxford and Milan Simonich | [email protected] | [email protected]
New Mexico is not what is known as a “right-to-work” state, and the Legislature drove home that point Sunday night. The Senate voted 23-19 to approve House Bill 85, which permits employers and labor organizations in New Mexico to enter into agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. Now the measure goes to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who’s well aware that 10 of the state’s 33 counties have adopted so-called right-to-work laws that say employees cannot be compelled to pay fees to a labor union that represents them on the job. The Senate struck back by approving the bill that strikes down these local measures. In some ways, the bill is as symbolic as the the city and county ordinances it seeks to void, merely reaffirming New Mexico’s labor laws. But Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, said the Legislature’s role in approving the bill tells city and county governments they do not have the power to authorize right-to-work laws any more than they could cut the tax rate for corporations. The power in both cases rests with the state government, Cervantes said. More important, Cervantes said, the Legislature is helping cities and counties avoid being sued because they have created laws that exceed the scope of their authority. Still, the debate on the Senate floor opened some fissures between Democrats and between urban and rural lawmakers.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, however, contends that right-to-work states have seen greater economic growth than states with no rightto-work laws. Right-to-work states recorded an 8.8 percent growth in employment between 2007 and 2017, while job growth over the same period in other states was 4.2 percent, the Virginia institute reported.
All 16 Republicans and three Democrats backed the efforts of a political organization called Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has pressed for the local laws in select parts of the state.
And manufacturing employment grew by 5.5 percent in right-to-work states during that time period, compared to 1.7 percent for states without right-to-work laws, according to the institute's numbers.
Sen. Greg Baca, R-Belen, said House Bill 85 tells those communities that their views don’t matter and would amount to Santa Fe wielding a heavy hand over the rest of the state.
Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Poverty, says the idea of forcing workers to accept and pay for union membership is an affront to workers' freedoms.
Republicans and industry groups have usually backed such ordinances, arguing that loosening laws on labor unions would help draw business to the state.
"This harms workers in Wisconsin and harms our state's economy overall by putting us at a massive disadvantage to attract businesses here," Vebber told Watchdog.org in an email.
Moreover, Republicans argued these laws would only be fair, as they would give workers a broader choice on whether to align with a union.
And the concept of a prevailing wage is antiquated and forces taxpayers to support above-market wages in construction projects, he said.
Even some Democrats suggested the Legislature should leave debates about union fees to local governments.
"Wisconsin was right to have eliminated it just a few years ago, and the governor's proposal to bring it back will do nothing but drive up the cost of government projects, harming taxpayers and ultimately our state's economy as a whole," Vebber said.
“We need to let those governments do their job,” said Sen. Clemente Sanchez of Grants, one of the Democrats who voted against the bill.
The others were Sens. John Arthur Smith of Deming and Mary Kay Papen of Las Cruces. And Sen. Jacob Candelaria, D-Albuquerque, said early in debate over the bill that he had not heard a principled explanation of why the Legislature should override the will of local governments. Cervantes had a fast reply. He said the 10 counties that approved right-to-work laws will squander taxpayers’ money on the lawsuits they have invited. He pointed to an attorney general’s opinion and a federal court decision as evidence that the local governments cannot win in court. Candelaria was persuaded. He voted for the bill. Other Democrats said so-called right-to-work laws are not about boosting economies but undercutting workers’ wages. Sen. Bill Tallman, D-Albuquerque, argued the state’s lagging economy has to do with many problems other than labor laws, from crime to poverty. It’s a myth that right-to-work laws make a state’s economy better, Tallman said. “I wish it were that simple,” he said, adding that the laws weaken unions and depress wages. Today, about 8 percent of New Mexico workers are represented by labor unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s on the low end when compared to other states but higher than New Mexico’s immediate neighbors, except for Colorado, where 12 percent of workers are represented by unions. Right-to-Work Law REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON
the right-to-work law, giving employees the choice to associate with union parties. States without right-to-work laws require employees to pay union dues and fees as a term for employment. While labor unions are still fully operative in right-towork states, the law protects these states’ employees by making payment of union fees an elective decision not bound to the employees’ employment contracts. States that enact the right-to-work laws make mandatory union contracts illegal while giving workers in unionized settings the advantage of benefiting from the terms of a union contract without having to pay dues. In a bid to protect the Freedom of Association clause, proponents of the right-towork law agree that workers shouldn’t be obliged to join a union if they are not interested. These supporters believe that states with the right-to-work law attract more businesses than states without. This is because companies would rather function in an environment where workplace disputes or threats of labor strikes would not interrupt their daily business operations. If these companies establish their bases in right-to-work states, workers would also migrate to these states. Advocates of the law agree that right-to-work states have a higher employment rate, after-tax income for employees, population growth, foreign direct investment(FDI) and a lower cost of living than states that have not implemented this law. Critics state that right-to-work state workers actually earn lower wages compared to the other states. Because right-to-work states have a lower cost of living, employees are paid lower nominal wages than what employees in states without this law are paid. Opponents argue that since federal law requires unions to represent all workers, regardless of whether they pay union dues, free riders are encouraged to benefit from union services at no cost to them. This would increase the cost of operating and maintaining a union organization. In addition, if businesses are given the choice to do without unions, this would lower the safety standards set in place for their employees. By making it harder for unions to operate and represent workers, economic inequality will be exacerbated and corporate power over employees will increase significantly. In 2017, Congress introduced the National Right to Work Act that would give employees nationwide the choice to opt out of joining or paying dues to unions. Compare Popular Online Brokers Provider Name
Updated May 7, 2018
Description
What is the Right-to-Work Law The right-to-work law is a fundamental law that allows workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union in the workplace. The right-to-work law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.
Advertiser Disclosure
Also known as Workplace Freedom or Workplace Choice.
more
BREAKING DOWN Right-to-Work Law In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), or the Wagner Act, was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. The Act protected the rights of employees to create a self-organization and mandated employers to engage in collective bargaining and employment negotiations with these selforganizations called labor unions. Employees were also compelled to pay the union for representing and protecting their interests. The NLRA required union membership as a condition for employment, thereby, restricting employment to union members only. History of the Right-to-Work Law President Harry Truman in 1947, amended parts of the NLRA when he passed the Taft-Harley Act. This Act created the right-to-work law which allows states to prohibit compulsory membership with a union as a condition for employment in the public and private sectors of the country. Currently, 28 states have passed
Related Terms Right of Egress The right of egress is the legal right to exit or leave a property and is usually applied in conjunction with the right of ingress.
Unofficial Strike An unofficial strike is a work stoppage by union members that is not endorsed by the union and that does not follow the legal requirements for striking. more Organized Labor Organized labor is an association that engages in collective bargaining for improving workers' economic status and working conditions. more Martial Law
Martial law is a law administered by the military rather than a civilian government which may be declared in an emergency or in response to a crisis. more Usury Laws Usury laws are regulations governing the amount of interest that can be charged on a loan for the sake of protecting borrowers. more Administrative Law Administrative law is the body of law that governs the regulation of government agencies at federal and state levels. “Right to work” is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union. The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union. The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and collective bargaining...”
Martin Luther King Jr. Right-to-Work Laws: Myth vs. Fact December 12, 2014 James Sherk @JamesBSherk Research Fellow, Labor Economics As research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, James Sherk researched ways to promote competition and mobility. Copied Select a Section 1/0 Many states and local governments are considering right-to-work laws. These laws make union dues voluntary. Without them, union contracts make paying dues a condition of employment. While most Americans support the concept of right-to-work, unions argue strenuously against them. However, most of the arguments against right-to-work have little basis in fact. Myth: Right-to-work laws prohibit unions. Fact: Right-to-work laws make union dues voluntary. Without right-to-work laws, unions negotiate contracts that force workers to pay dues or get fired. Rightto-work laws protect workers’ freedom. The National Labor Relations Act also protects the right of workers in right-to-work states to unionize. Unions currently represent 4.4 million workers in 24 right-to-work states, including highly unionized Nevada, Iowa, and Michigan.[1] Myth: Right-to-work laws undermine unions.
Fact: Right-to-work laws make unions work to earn workers’ support. In the long run, this can strengthen union locals. Without right-to-work laws, unions can take their members’ dues for granted and provide lower quality representation. Gary Casteel, the Southern region director for the United Auto Workers, explains: This is something I’ve never understood, that people think right to work hurts unions. To me, it helps them. You don’t have to belong if you don’t want to. So if I go to an organizing drive, I can tell these workers, “If you don’t like this arrangement, you don’t have to belong.” Versus, “If we get 50 percent of you, then all of you have to belong, whether you like to or not.” I don’t even like the way that sounds, because it’s a voluntary system, and if you don’t think the system’s earning its keep, then you don’t have to pay.[2] Myth: Right-to-work laws allow non-union members to “free ride” on the benefits of union representation without paying its cost. Fact: Unions voluntarily represent non-members. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the National Labor Relations Act allows unions to negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized.”[3] Unions represent non-members only when they act as “exclusive bargaining representatives,” which requires non-members to accept the union’s representation. In that case, the law requires unions to represent nonmembers fairly. They cannot negotiate high wages for their supporters and the minimum wage for non-members. Unions can avoid representing non-members by disclaiming exclusive representative status. Myth: Representing non-members costs exclusive representative unions a lot of money. Fact: Unions often spend little on representational activities. When unions choose to act as exclusive bargaining representatives, they often spend relatively little on processing grievances and negotiating contracts. Often union contracts have employers cover these costs by allowing union stewards to do union business while on company time. As a result, many union locals spend very little representing workers—either members or non-members. Federal filings reveal that in 2013 United Auto Workers Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, spent just 2 percent of its $560,000 budget on representational activities.[4] Boilermakers Local 107 in Brookfield, Wisconsin, spent 5 percent of its $2.0 million budget on representational activities.[5] Machinists Lodge 2515 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, spent 23 percent of its $645,000 budget on representational activities—almost all of which constituted payments to its officers.[6] Myth: Right-to-work laws provide no economic benefits. Fact: Companies consider right-to-work laws a major factor when deciding where to locate. Organizing victories bring in a lot more money for a union in jurisdictions with compulsory dues. Consequently, unions organize more aggressively in places without right-to-work laws.[7] Companies in turn want to know they can avoid being targeted by union organizers if they treat their workers well. Right-to-work laws make that more likely. Economic development consultants report that roughly half of all major businesses refuse to consider locating in jurisdictions with compulsory dues.[8] Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that between 1990 and 2014 total employment grew more than twice as fast in right-to-work states as in states with compulsory dues.[9] Myth: Right-to-work laws lower wages. Fact: Workers have the same or higher buying power in right-to-work states.Opponents often deride voluntary dues as “right-to-work for less.” Average wages in right-to-work states are indeed slightly lower than in non-right-to-work states. This occurs because almost every Southern state has a right-to-work law and the South has a lower cost of living. Studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and
possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.[10]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Myth: Right-to-work laws divide Americans.
The Indiana legislature recently approved a “right to work” law, the 23rd of its kind in the United States.
Fact: Americans overwhelmingly support right-to-work laws. Recent Gallup polling finds Americans support right-to-work laws by a 71 percent to 22 percent margin—better than 3 to 1. Independents support right-to-work laws 77 percent to 17 percent, Republicans support them 74 percent to 18 percent, and Democrats support them 65 percent to 30 percent.[11] Polling also shows that union members themselves support voluntary dues by an 80 percent to 17 percent margin.[12]Voters also reward politicians who support voluntary dues at the polls. Not a single Michigan legislator who voted for right-to-work laws in 2012 lost in the next general election. Right-to-work laws remain controversial primarily among union officers—not the general public. The arguments against right-to-work laws do not withstand scrutiny. Right-towork laws give workers a choice over where their money goes. This freedom forces unions to earn their members’ support. It also attracts businesses and jobs. The law should not force anyone in America to pay union dues as a condition of employment. —James Sherk is Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics, in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Why unions are so worried about right-to-work laws By Jana Kasperkevic
A “union shop” agreement between an employer and a union commits the employer to ensuring that new hires join the union within a specified period. Rightto-work laws ban union-shop agreements. Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract. If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the Indiana legislature the right to interfere? Employers own the wages they will pay and the sites where work will be performed under such contracts. So it’s their right to dispense the wages and make the sites available specifically to union members, just as it’s their right, more generally, to trade with anyone they choose. When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another.
February 24, 2017 | 11:20 AM Labor union members protest Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's proposed budget cuts in April 2011. - Bill Pugliano/Getty Images A national right-to-work bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, and though previous attempts have failed, a Republican-controlled Congress and White House means a law is a real possibility. And that’s a threat to labor unions, who are dependent on the dues that such a law would curtail. “Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever before,” Leacy Burke, a spokeswoman for South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, told the Huffington Post. Even if the bill should fail, more than half of the states have enacted their own right-to-work legislation, and a handful more have introduced bills. As U.S. lawmakers gear up for a right-to-work debate, here’s a quick overview of the issue. What is right to work? Right-to-work laws prohibit labor unions and employers from requiring workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment. This means that employees who work at a unionized workplace and do not support the union or do not want to be part of the union can opt out of paying dues. In states that are not right-to-work states, workers hired at a unionized workplace can be required to join a union and pay union dues. Why is this important? First of all, money. Union dues can add up to a few hundred dollars a year per person. For example, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) describes its monthly dues as being equivalent to about two hours’ worth of pay, or $50. Dues differ from union to union, and each union determines how to use its funds differently. In addition to spending dues on maintaining the union and negotiating contracts, unions can also use the funds for awareness campaigns on pending legislation, proposed bills and to build up a strike fund, which could be used to support workers if they opt to go on the strike. Another — and arguably the most controversial — budget item for labor unions is political campaign donations. This brings us to the second reason why right to work is an important issue: power and influence. What’s Wrong with Right-to-Work
And there’s no principled way to draw a sharp line here: Once it’s okay for a legislature to interfere with bargaining in this way, there’s no stopping politicians from setting wages and prices, or requiring or prohibiting the hiring of particular people. Supporting a free society means embracing people’s freedom to form unions. And it means acknowledging that unions—and union-shop agreements—can offer both workers and employers something valuable. Unions can help to secure workers predictable terms of employment and protect them against arbitrary dismissal. And a union contract can help make workplaces more predictable for employers, ensure that information is disseminated to workers, and reduce a variety of workplace transaction costs. Proponents of right-to-work laws defend them on several grounds:
The laws lower wage costs, and thus consumer prices. The laws benefit workers in non-unionized workplaces, who will earn less in their absence. The laws give particular workers opportunities to negotiate for better, or different, terms of employment. It’s not the job of the government to interfere with free agreements to lower costs or boost incomes. Presumably the government could force lots of people to work for no wages at all. That would also do what right-to-work laws do, albeit much more dramatically: It would treat people as slaves. The same would be true if it mandated wages for everyone.
All that people need in order to negotiate for themselves is freedom of contract. (Of course, sometimes they might not be able to do so if an employer is bound by a union contract that prohibits individual negotiations. But if the contract is a voluntary one, the government has no business interfering with it.)
Big businesses that supported the emergence of modern labor law liked the fact that it had the potential to keep unions tame and manageable, ensuring that they would operate within a predefined legal framework in order to enjoy legal privileges. (This is not to say that everything worked out exactly as the corporate elite would have liked.)
U.S. Labor-Law Background
It should be no surprise, then, that viewed as a package, existing labor law limits workers’ options. For instance, since bargaining is required only when a union enjoys majority support, a union that represents a significant fraction of employees—but not a majority—will tend to be treated as irrelevant.
Defenders of right-to-work laws also sometimes point to the background laborlaw framework in the United States as a justification for these laws. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and its successors established a system that requires an employer to bargain with a union enjoying majority support in a given workplace. Right-to-work proponents argue that the laws they favor only help to level the playing field created by government action—by reining in special privileges granted to unions under existing labor law. But those laws actually presuppose the restrictions inherent in that framework, while extending them further. One goal of the NLRA and later federal laws was to reduce conflict—and in effect reduce workers’ choices—by ensuring that just one union, moderate enough to win majority support (and therefore moderate enough to be cooperative with employers), would operate in a given workplace, while suppressing more radical unions and labor actions. If right-to-work laws were really about individual freedom, they would simply allow unions to represent voluntary dues-paying members only while respecting employers’ right to recognize or not recognize unions. In other words, the laws would permit states to opt out of federal labor law entirely—and nothing more. But these laws do much more, perhaps because allowing this kind of flexibility and variety would undermine the interests of politically influential employers by unshackling upstart competitors.
Right-to-work laws typically assume, as does the federal labor-law framework, that if workers are represented at all, they’ll all be represented by one union—a single, certified bargaining agent. One practical effect of this arrangement is to undermine “minority unionism”—labor action by any number of workers acting on their own behalf, functioning as a bargaining unit without official certification. The practical effect is to reduce flexibility for workers and to ensure that they have to choose between an established union or no representation at all. Other aspects of the existing legal framework are troubling, too. Legal rules that let courts order workers back to work treat workers as slaves, as the State’s property. A secondary boycott—a work action in which one group of workers refuses to work with or for an employer involved in a dispute with another group of workers— can be a powerful, nonviolent tool for achieving workplace goals. But current law bans secondary boycotts and “sympathy strikes,” as well as strikes across plants or industries, again treating workers as slaves.
Of course, laws that respected freedom of contract wouldn’t mandate particular bargaining rules. Just laws would protect people from violence and leave them free to work out the arrangements that make sense to them. There’s nothing sacred about the existing labor-law framework. In a free society bargaining over employment terms wouldn’t be constrained by anything like the NLRA. As Freeman contributor Percy L. Greaves, Jr., wrotein a tribute to Ludwig von Mises: “[T]he agitators for ‘right-to-work’ laws forget . . . that the problem is basically one of getting the government out of moral business transactions and not into them. . . . The economic answer is to repeal the bad intervention and not try to counterbalance it with another bad intervention.”
Existing laws provide for “cooling-off” periods before strikes can proceed. They require arbitration of some labor disputes, denying workers access to the courts, and precluding continued, tough negotiation. They encourage collective bargaining to focus just on some fairly specific issues related to the terms of employment rather than broader workplace concerns like plant closings and governance. They rule out contracts that require hiring-hall arrangements in which unions funnel new workers to employers. They even allow a U.S. president to decree an end to a strike. The existing labor-law regime is designed to tame workers in the interests of “industrial peace,” not to promote their interests.
The NLRA framework wasn’t created out of sheer benevolence. Rather, the historical record shows, big businesses wanted something like it because they thought it would reduce conflict and increase costs for their competitors.
So, by all means, repeal the NLRA and all the state right-to-work laws. The government needs to get out of the labor-law business. It needs to respect freedom of contract.
Even when union activity was legally disfavored, or actually illegal, unions like the Industrial Workers of the World won contract victories with strikes and work slowdowns. The eight-hour working day, for instance, wasn’t a gift from benevolent politicians: It was an achievement of union struggles that took place well before the Wagner Act framework was in place.
But don’t stop there. Eliminate the full range of privileges and restrictions that boost employers’ influence over people’s terms of employment. For instance: Get rid of the rules that reduce the available alternatives to paid employment by raising the costs of working for yourself—rules like occupational licensing requirements and zoning codes that keep people from running businesses from their homes. And eliminate rules that make self-employment riskier by raising the cost of living—like building and zoning codes, and rent control and land-use controls that limit the availability of housing—and that therefore channel people into the predictable, even if less appealing, world of work for wages. People who have other options can afford to bargain for good terms. It’s also important, therefore, to remove the various restraints that limit the number of startup businesses: The more employers there are, the more competition there will be for labor, and the better the terms will be for those who choose to work for others.
Years before the New Deal, big, politically influential businesses wanted to diminish conflict, increase predictability, and reduce the appeal of radical unions. So they supported federal labor legislation, and some contributed to the development of the approach embodied in the NLRA. Although most of the corporate elite was unhappy with the NLRA as written, key business figures cooperated with the secretary of labor to implement it, hoping the law would help to handle grievances and prevent instability in the workplace.
To the extent that right-to-work laws might seem to make sense as mechanisms for dealing with union abuses, the solution is to eliminate the whole body of modern labor legislation. Unions have shown they don’t need it, even in the unfreed market we have today. And in a genuinely freed market, workers would find it significantly easier than they do at present to work for themselves, to say no to abusive work environments, and so to bargain effectively for appealing wages and working conditions and opportunities to direct their workplaces. They certainly wouldn’t need the NLRA.
Right-to-Work Laws
Right-to-work laws limit workers’ and employers’ freedom of contract. They prevent workers and employers from making mutually beneficial agreements. They don’t belong in a free society.
Taft-Hartley requires that all employees at a company must receive the same benefits of union activity whether or not they belong to the union. For example, if a union negotiates a pay raise for its members, the employer must give the same pay raise to its non-union employees. In many industries, non-union employees are required to pay an "agency fee" as compensation for the union benefits ensured by Taft-Hartley. However, they are not required to pay for the union's political activities—fees that are included in the regular dues for union members.
The author thanks Kevin Carson, James Tuttle, Tom Knapp, Keith Taylor, Tennyson McCalla, and Sheldon Richman for comments on earlier drafts of this article.
The Right-to-Work Debate
Gary Chartier Gary Chartier is a professor of law and business ethics and associate dean of the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University in Riverside, California. He is the author of Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society, published by Cambridge University Press. Pros and Cons of Right to Work Right-to-Work Laws vs. Right to Work Without Union Fees BY JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Updated September 28, 2018 Right-to-work laws have been enacted by more than half of the U.S.states. These laws should not be confused with the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that require union membership for employees. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, employees have the same right to employment whether or not they are members of a union. However, the Act does allow for unions to require that non-union employees pay for nonpolitical union initiatives from which all employees may benefit. Right-to-work laws enacted by states prohibit this payment requirement in certain industries. The Taft-Hartley Act Passed in 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act remains the cornerstone of United States labor law today. This act amended the Wagner Act of 1935, which reflects the attitudes of post-World War II America towards labor. Due to "national emergency" strikes during the war, postwar strikes, and the advantages given to unions by the Wagner Act, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the Act in an attempt to restore the balance of power between labor and management. The Act restricts the activities of unions in four ways by: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Prohibiting unfair labor practices by unions Listing the rights of employees who are union members Listing the rights of employers Empowering the president of the United States to suspend labor strikes that may constitute a national emergency
Many argue that the Taft-Hartley Act is the original "right-to-work" law because it ensures that prospective employees cannot be barred from employment if they choose not to belong to a union. Therefore, the right to work is not an issue. The true bone of contention in the right-to-work debate is whether non-union employees should be forced to pay fees for some union activity, such as collective bargaining and union protection, from which they may benefit.
In the current political climate, right-to-work laws aim to bar employers or unions from requiring payment of any union-related fees from non-union employees. Supporters of the laws argue that requiring payments inhibits economic growth and can make some companies or industries less attractive to prospective employees. They also feel that forcing workers to pay fees simply because they work in an industry or company with a strong union presence is an infringement on their freedom. Opponents of right-to-work laws affirm that it's unfair for non-union employees to reap the benefits of union activity without paying fees, while their fellow employees who belong to the union support that same activity with their union dues. On a larger political level, it is argued that right-to-work laws diminish the influence and financial power of unions and therefore the unions can provide less support for political candidates and initiatives. Because unions typically support Democratic politicians, many believe that right-to-work laws (which are typically backed by Republicans) are aimed at weakening support for Democrats, particularly at the state level.
Related Documents
More, More....
November 2019 37
More
May 2020 23
More
August 2019 48
Leicakorea - More Fast, More Reliable, More Convenient
November 2019 25
Leicakorea - More Fast, More Reliable, More Convenient4
November 2019 28
Leicakorea - More Fast, More Reliable, More Convenient3
November 2019 26More Documents from ""
Civpro_rule9_digests.docx
June 2020 5
Right To Work Law Position Paper (negative).docx
June 2020 3
Right-to-work-law (wikipedia).docx
June 2020 4
Civpro_rule8_digests.docx
June 2020 8
Civpro_rule 3_section7-8.docx
June 2020 5