Jump to content

Right-to-work law: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dysperdis (talk | contribs)
54 edits
Dysperdis (talk | contribs)
54 edits
Line 19: Line 19:
Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the [[United States Constitution|Constitutional]] right to [[freedom of association]], as well as the [[common-law]] principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states.<ref>[http://www.stopteacherstrikes.org/index.php?pr=Forced_Unionism StopTeacherStrikes.org "Right-to-Work vs. Forced Unionism"]</ref> They contend that it is wrong to permit unions and employers to include clauses in union contracts (also known as a [[union security agreement]]) that require all employees to either join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.<ref>[http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1395 Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center for Public Policy&#93;<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases, forced union dues are used to support political causes that some union members may oppose.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues62002/williams.pdf |title=The Use of Mandatory Union Dues for Politics: A Lesson from Washington State |accessdate=2009-06-10 |author=The Evergreen Foundation |last=Williams |first=Bob |date=2002-06-20 |format=Pdf |work=Congressional Testimony}}{{Dead link|date=August 2010}}</ref>
Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the [[United States Constitution|Constitutional]] right to [[freedom of association]], as well as the [[common-law]] principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states.<ref>[http://www.stopteacherstrikes.org/index.php?pr=Forced_Unionism StopTeacherStrikes.org "Right-to-Work vs. Forced Unionism"]</ref> They contend that it is wrong to permit unions and employers to include clauses in union contracts (also known as a [[union security agreement]]) that require all employees to either join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.<ref>[http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1395 Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center for Public Policy&#93;<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases, forced union dues are used to support political causes that some union members may oppose.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues62002/williams.pdf |title=The Use of Mandatory Union Dues for Politics: A Lesson from Washington State |accessdate=2009-06-10 |author=The Evergreen Foundation |last=Williams |first=Bob |date=2002-06-20 |format=Pdf |work=Congressional Testimony}}{{Dead link|date=August 2010}}</ref>


Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have stronger pro-business policies than those without this legislation, making it difficult to determine the effect of any single law.<ref name="Holmes">Holmes, Thomas J., “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence
Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have stronger pro-business policies than those without this type of legislation, making it difficult to determine the effect of any single law.<ref name="Holmes">Holmes, Thomas J., “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence
from State Borders,” The Journal of Political Economy, 1998, 106, 667–705.</ref>
from State Borders,” The Journal of Political Economy, 1998, 106, 667–705.</ref>


Revision as of 11:54, 21 October 2011

Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop.

The Taft-Hartley Act

Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire, is also illegal.[1] As such, it is illegal for any employer to force an employee to join a union.

A similar arrangement to the union shop is the agency shop, under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

The Federal Government operates under open shop rules nationwide, though many of its employees are represented by unions. Unions that represent professional athletes have written contracts that impose forced-unionism requirements,[2], but their application is limited to "wherever and whenever legal," as the Supreme Court has clearly held that the application of a Right to Work law is determined by the employee's "predominant job situs." [3] Hence, players on professional sports teams in states with Right to Work laws are protected by those laws, and cannot be required to pay any portion of union dues as a condition of continued employment. [4]

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia do not have right-to-work laws. If no union is formed in an employee's workplace, the lack of a right-to-work law does not mean an employee has to join or pay union membership dues to a union.

Arguments for and against

Arguments for

Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states.[5] They contend that it is wrong to permit unions and employers to include clauses in union contracts (also known as a union security agreement) that require all employees to either join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.[6] Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases, forced union dues are used to support political causes that some union members may oppose.[7]

Due to other similarities between states which have passed right-to-work laws, it is difficult to analyze these laws by comparing states; for instance, right-to-work states often have stronger pro-business policies than those without this type of legislation, making it difficult to determine the effect of any single law.[8]

A March 3, 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal compared Ohio to Texas and examined why "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags". According to the editorial, during the previous decade, while Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, Texas gained 1,615,000 new jobs. The article cites several reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the absence of a state income tax, and right-to-work laws.[9]

Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek endorsed right-to-work laws, writing:

If legislation, jurisdiction, and the tolerance of executive agencies had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen in common-law countries. But, once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation. Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom.

Footnote: Such legislation, to be consistent with our principles, should not go beyond declaring certain contracts invalid, which is sufficient for removing all pretext to action to obtain them. It should not, as the title of the 'right-to-work laws' may suggest, give individuals a claim to a particular job, or even (as some of the laws in force in certain American states do) confer a right to damages for having denied a particular job, when the denial is not illegal on other grounds. The objections against such provisions are the same as those that apply to 'fair employment practices' laws.[10]

Arguments against

Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem,[11][12] in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.[11][13]

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered[13] and worker safety and health is endangered. For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right to work for less" states [14] or "right-to-fire" states, and to non-right-to-work states as "free collective bargaining" states. They cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that, in 2003, states with right-to-work laws in general had a higher rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers.[15]

Business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce lobbied extensively for right-to-work legislation in the Southern states.[11][16][17][18] Critics from organized labor have argued since the late 1970s[19] that while the National Right to Work Committee purports to engage in grass-roots lobbying on behalf of the "little guy", the National Right to Work Committee was formed by a group of southern businessmen with the express purpose of fighting unions, and that they "added a few workers for the purpose of public relations".[20]

They also contend that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has received millions of dollars in grants from foundations controlled by major U.S. industrialists like the New York-based Olin Foundation, Inc., which grew out of a family manufacturing business,[20][21][22] and other groups.[19]

Conservative Washington Examiner columnist Timothy Carney has argued against right-to work-laws. He argues that "these laws interfere with the right of contract and they bar certain consensual economic arrangements — specifically, they bar employers from agreeing to hire only union workers", and calls opposition to them "the true conservative position".[23]

U.S. states with right-to-work laws

Right-to-work states shown in turquoise

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

In addition, the territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws, and employees of the US Federal Government have the right to choose whether or not to join their respective unions.

† An employee's right-to-work is established under the state Constitution, not under legislative action.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?". National Right To Work. Retrieved 08-27-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012: Art. V, Sec. 1 (agency shop).
  3. ^ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.).
  4. ^ Orr v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).
  5. ^ StopTeacherStrikes.org "Right-to-Work vs. Forced Unionism"
  6. ^ Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
  7. ^ Williams, Bob (2002-06-20). "The Use of Mandatory Union Dues for Politics: A Lesson from Washington State" (Pdf). Congressional Testimony. Retrieved 2009-06-10. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)[dead link‍]
  8. ^ Holmes, Thomas J., “The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders,” The Journal of Political Economy, 1998, 106, 667–705.
  9. ^ Texas v. Ohio, The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2008. Accessed July 18, 2008.
  10. ^ Carney, Timothy (2011-02-23) A strong argument in favor of Right to Work (featuring F.A. Hayek), Washington Examiner
  11. ^ a b c "The South Carolina Governance Project — Interest Groups in South Carolina," Center for Governmental Services, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, University of South Carolina, Accessed July 6, 2007.
  12. ^ http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110114/NEWS/101140396/-1/NEWSMAP retrieved January 14, 2011
  13. ^ a b Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "States Seek Laws to Curb Power of Unions". The New York Times.
  14. ^ http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/ retrieved July 22, 2010
  15. ^ "Metro Council Democrats Say No to Right to Work for Less"
  16. ^ Berkeley Miller and William Canak, (1991) "From "Porkchoppers" to "Lambchoppers": The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 2; pp. 349–366
  17. ^ Dane M. Partridge, (1997) "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition", Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 10, Number 2; pp. 127–139
  18. ^ William Canak and Berkeley Miller, (1990) "Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2; pp. 258–271
  19. ^ a b "Examining the opposition's tangled web — the who's who in the right wing" The Machinist, published by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO/CLC, October 1977; accessed February 4, 2008
  20. ^ a b "Questions and Answers about the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," United Auto Workers, Accessed February 3, 2008.
  21. ^ "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
  22. ^ "John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.", Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
  23. ^ Carney, Timothy (2011-02-22) "Mitch Daniels is right, and Right to Work is wrong", Washington Examiner

Supporting right-to-work laws

Opposed to right-to-work laws

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Right-to-work_law&oldid=456665290"