right-to-work law

For more information on right-to-work law, visit Britannica.com.

Outlawing a Union Shop in states that have adopted it, according to Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. It prohibits agreements requiring membership in a union as a condition of continued employment of a person who was not a member when hired.

Right-To-Work Laws first appeared in a significant number of states after Congress enacted the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, and they remain on the books in roughly twenty states today. The "right" these laws enshrine is the nineteenth-century liberal individualist conception of freedom of contract between employer and employee. They protect the individual worker's freedom to refuse to join or to help support a union, including one chosen by fellow employees as their bargaining representative. Thus, from the perspective animating the Wagner Act, they aim to undercut collective labor agreements.

More specifically, right-to-work laws are aimed against union security provisions in collective labor contracts. Such provisions may require that the employer hire only union members, ensuring a so-called "closed shop," or they may require that newly hired workers join the union within a certain period. Or union security provisions may not require union membership: they may only demand that employees contribute their share to the union's costs of bargaining on workers' behalf. Also, they may provide that the employer shall deduct union dues or fees from workers' pay checks. State right-to-work laws typically outlaw all such arrangements. Florida and Arkansas pioneered this field of legislation in 1944; other Southern and prairie states soon followed. According to most students of labor relations in post–World War II America, right-to-work laws have helped thwart union organizing in these antiunion regions, particularly in industries and among social groups with no union traditions.

Union security provisions adorned collective labor agreements long before the Wagner Act, but the law lent them no support. Indeed, many state and federal courts declared that strikes to secure or preserve the closed or union shop were illegal. The Wagner Act declared a new national policy in support of unionism and collective bargaining. The act cleared away old antiunion, judge-made law. It not only protected the rights to organize and to strike; it also required employers to recognize and to bargain in good faith with unions freely chosen by a majority of employees. The Wagner Act also provided that union security agreements were legal and enforceable. Then, in 1947, with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Truman's veto, Congress reversed its course and outlawed the closed shop, while permitting the union shop, which requires only that employees become union members within thirty days of initial employment. More controversially, Taft-Hartley also permitted the states to go much further than Congress had gone. Taft-Hartley allowed the states to outlaw the union shop or any other form of union security agreement, which would otherwise be legal under national law. Thus, Taft-Hartley opened the way for the rash of post–World War II right-to-work laws.

Bibliography

Hardin, Patrick, et al. The Developing Labor Law: The Board, the Courts, and the National Labor Relations Act. Washington D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 2002.

Millis, Harry A., and Emily Clark Brown. From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

Zieger, Robert. The CIO: 1935–1955. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

State laws permitted by section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act that provide in general that employees are not required to join a union as a condition of getting or retaining a job.

Right-to-work laws forbid unions and employers to enter into agreements requiring employees to join a union and pay dues and fees to it in order to get or keep a job. Twenty-one states, mostly in the South and West, have right-to-work laws.

The ability of states to pass right-to-work laws was authorized by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, also known as the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.). Taft-Hartley, which sought to curtail union power in the workplace, amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.). The NLRA as first passed preempted state regulation of labor relations in interstate commerce, with the goal of developing a national labor law. Taft-Hartley departed from this goal in section 14(b) (29 U.S.C.A. § 164[b]), expressly authorizing the states to adopt right-to-work measures. Organized labor has tried repeatedly, without success, to secure the repeal of section 14(b). The Federal Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) prevents the application of state right-to-work laws to the railroad and airline industries.

Section 14(b) works with other provisions of Taft-Hartley to limit the ability of unions to mandate compulsory union membership. Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) prohibit a type of union security clause (a provision that describes the obligations of employees to support the union) from being inserted into a collective bargaining agreement. A closed shop clause obligates the employer to hire only union members and to discharge any employee who drops union membership. The closed shop is forbidden under Taft-Hartley.

Although the act permits the union shop, section 14(b) allows the states to prohibit it. A union shop clause requires an employee to become a member of the union in order to retain a job, although no one needs to be a member in order to be hired; every newly hired person has a prescribed period of time to become a member.

Section 14(b) also allows states to prohibit the agency shop. An agency shop clause requires every company employee to pay to the union an amount equal to the union's customary initiation fees and monthly dues. It does not require the employee to become a formal member of the union, be a member before being hired, take an oath of obligation, or observe any internal rules and regulations of the union except with regard to dues. The U.S. Supreme Court, in National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734, 83 S. Ct. 1453, 10 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1963), held that an employer does not violate the NLRA by agreeing to include an agency shop clause in a bargaining agreement.

Therefore, when a state passes a right-to-work law, it prohibits both mandatory union membership and initiation fees and dues obligations of agency shops, and permits employees who do not voluntarily pay dues and initiation fees to receive the benefits the union provides. Unions call such people "free riders."

Right-to-work advocates argue that no person should be forced to become a union member or to provide financial support for a labor organization as a condition of employment. Such compulsion is said to be contrary to the U.S. concept of individual rights and freedom of association. It is also alleged that compulsory unionism enables large labor organizations to exert excessive power in the workplace and in the political arena.

Organized labor believes that right-to-work laws allow free riders at the expense of their fellow workers. Opponents of these laws argue that everyone should pay a proportionate share of the costs of the union in negotiating contract benefits that will go to all. Unions also maintain that the real objective of right-to-work laws is to sow dissension among workers and thus weaken the labor movement.

The bitter controversy over right-to-work laws peaked in the 1950s, when almost every state legislature considered the issue. Some scholars suggest the importance of the issue has been exaggerated. Studies have indicated that where unions are well established, employees tend to enroll without regard to right-to-work statutes. Such laws may be more a symptom than a cause of union weakness in certain industries and geographical areas.

See: Collective Bargaining; Labor Law; Labor Union.

Laws that make it illegal to require workers to join labor unions as a condition of employment. Right-to-work laws are opposed to the union shop.

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 trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Contents 1 The Taft-Hartley Act 2 Arguments for and against 2.1 Arguments for 2.2 Arguments against 2.3 Libertarian split view 3 U.S. states with right-to-work laws 4 See also 5 References 6 External links 6.1 Supporting "right-to-work" laws 6.2 Opposed to "right-to-work" laws

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 are required to 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 Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a "union shop" rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under "union shop" rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.

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 or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

The Federal Government operates under "open shop" rules nationwide, although many of its employees are represented by unions. Conversely, professional sports leagues (regardless of where a team is located) operate under "agency shop" rules. ^[1]

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 a union. The provisions in right to work laws, as in South Dakota's for example, can give the state Attorney General power to investigate allegations against unions.

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 often refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced-union" states.^[2] They contend that it is wrong for unions to be able to agree with employers to include clauses in their union contracts (also known as "union security clauses") which require all employees to either join the union, or pay union dues as a condition of employment.^[3] Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases forced union dues are used to support political causes, causes which many union members may oppose.^[4]

Proponents also argue that right-to-work states experience higher economic growth and job creation than do non-right to work law states.^[5][6] Moreover, they contend right-to-work states typically have lower unemployment rates.^[7]

A critic questions this because there are other differences between states.^[8] For instance, states with RTW laws may have other pro-business laws, which makes 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 created 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]

Arguments against

Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem, 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.^[10] They also contend outlawing compulsory union dues makes union activities less sustainable, that the laws prevent free contracts between unions and business owners, and that this makes it harder for unions to organize and less attractive for people to join a union.^{[citation needed]} For these reasons, they often refer to right-to-work states as "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states.^{[citation needed]}

Business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce lobbied extensively for right-to-work legislation in the Southern states.^{[10][11][12][13]} Critics from organized labor have argued since the late 1970s^[14] 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."^[15] They also argue 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 John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. which grew out of a family manufacturing business,^[15][16][17] and other "right wing" groups.^[14]

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered and worker safety and health is endangered. They cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that in 2003 the rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers was highest in right-to-work states.^[18]

Libertarian split view

From a libertarian perspective, right-to-work laws may be argued either for or against, depending on whether the focus is on the freedom of the employee or the freedom of the employer. A right-to-work law can be seen as either freeing individual employees from being coerced into joining a union,^[19] or as restricting the right of an employer to enter into a voluntary contract with its labor union. For example, the Libertarian Party's affiliate in the state of Georgia includes an endorsement of right-to-work laws in its party platform.^[20] However, in the past, the national Libertarian Party has included talking points in its platform which have explicitly called for the repeal of right-to-work laws.^[21][22] In 2006, the Libertarian Reform Caucus successfully spearheaded a drive to remove from the Libertarian Party platform specific planks upon which there is significant disagreement among membership.^[23] As a result, the national platform no longer specifically addresses right-to-work laws.^[24]

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

Right-to-work states shown in turquoise

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

• Alabama
• Arizona †
• Arkansas †
• Florida †
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Mississippi †
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma †
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wyoming

In addition, the territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws.

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

See also

• At-will employment

References

1. ^ http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf Art. V, Sec. 1
2. ^ StopTeacherStrikes.org "Right-to-Work vs. Forced Unionism"
3. ^ Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
4. ^ Williams, Bob (2002-06-20). "The Use of Mandatory Union Dues for Politics: A Lesson from Washington State" (Pdf). Congressional Testimony. http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues62002/williams.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-10. 
5. ^ [1]
6. ^ [2]
7. ^ Unemployment Rates [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]
8. ^ ^{a b} 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. ^ ^{a b} "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.

    South Carolina has long been one of the least unionized states in the nation. In 2000 the state ranked 49th with 4 percent unionized, only slightly ahead of North Carolina. As a result, organized labor has relatively less clout in the state than in most other states. One of the main goals of powerful business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce has been to keep labor unions out of the state, and they have been quite successful in their efforts. A major tool in weakening efforts to unionize the labor force has been the "right-to-work" laws, passed more than 40 years ago. These laws outlaw the "closed shop," which would force all workers to join a union when a majority of workers vote to be represented by the union. The idea behind the closed shop is to prevent what is called "free riders," that is, workers who benefit from union contracts without having to pay to support the union efforts.

    Even public employee unions, which, unlike private sector unions, have been growing nationally, are limited in South Carolina. State government does not engage in collective bargaining with public employees and prohibits strikes. S.C. Code (Section 8-11-33) only allows dues for the State Troopers' Association and State Employees' Association to be withheld in paychecks if they do not engage in collective bargaining or encourage members to strike. The simultaneous strikes by public school teachers and university professors in Hawaii in the spring of 2001 that ultimately led to double digit pay increases simply could not take place in South Carolina.

11. ^ 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.
12. ^ 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.
13. ^ 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.
14. ^ ^{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.
15. ^ ^{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.
16. ^ "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
17. ^ "John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.," Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
18. ^ Metro Council Democrats Say No to Right to Work for Less
19. ^ University of Michigan report accessed January 3, 2008
20. ^ Georgian Libertarian Party Platform accessed January 3, 2008
21. ^ 2004 Platform of Libertarian Party
22. ^ Dean & Libertarians Hate "Right to Work" Laws
23. ^ "Victory in Portland! Libertarian Reform Caucus"
24. ^ National Platform of the Libertarian Party

External links

Supporting "right-to-work" laws

• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
• National Right to Work Committee
• National Institute for Labor Relations Research
• Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses

Opposed to "right-to-work" laws

• Right To Work Is Wrong For Michigan
• Center for Policy Alternatives: Right to Work—For Less
• Bad for Indiana — www.badforindiana.org — A grassroots effort to stop the right-to-work campaign in Indiana.
• The Michigan AFL-CIO: Key Points on Right-to-Work in Michigan.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)