Right-to-work law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Right to Work)
Jump to: navigation, search

Right-to-work laws are statutes in 28 U.S. states that prohibit union security agreements between companies and workers' unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces may not be compelled to join a union, nor compelled to pay for any part of the cost of union representation, while generally receiving the same benefits as union members who do contribute.[1]

According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[2] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

Unions are already governed by regulations and laws, including public policy on labor-management relations (e.g., a university central office professional position on labor relations). Typically, unions are organized by industry (e.g., healthcare, restaurant, steel workers, teachers, state government- professional, non-professional), and they are required to be first voted in by employees and management, typically with an open ended representation with no renewal or reauthorization or recall ability (the only recourse being to petition to decertify as required by federal law), with provisions on dues payments required as of 2011. For example, while municipal employees have their unions, as do police and firefighters, other non-profit agencies in localities may not be offered these same protections.[clarification needed]

Right-to-work provisions (either by law or by constitutional provision) exist in 28 U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States, but also including the Midwestern states of Michigan,[3] Indiana,[4] and Wisconsin.[5] Business interests represented by the United States Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[6][7] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between people employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector, with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., workers must pay for union representation in order to obtain or retain a job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees; provided, however, that the law also permits an "agency shop" where employees pay their share for representation (less than union dues), while not joining the union as members.


Wagner Act (1935)[edit]

The National Labor Relations Act, generally known as the Wagner Act, was passed in 1935 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Second New Deal." Among other things, the Act provided that a company could lawfully agree to be any of the following:

  • A closed shop, in which employees must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under a closed shop, 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, was required to be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
  • A union shop, which allows for hiring non-union employees, provided that the employees then join the union within a certain period.
  • An agency shop, in which employees must pay the equivalent of the cost of union representation, but need not formally join the union.
  • An open shop, in which an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union or be fired for joining the union.[8]

The Act tasked the National Labor Relations Board, which had existed since 1933, with overseeing the rules.

Taft–Hartley Act (1947)[edit]

In 1947 Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, generally known as the Taft–Hartley Act, over President Harry S. Truman's veto. The Act repealed some parts of the Wagner Act, including outlawing the closed shop. Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act also 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. Any state law that outlaws such arrangements is known as a "right-to-work state."

In the early development of the right-to-work policy, segregationist sentiment was used as an argument, as many people in the South felt that it was wrong for blacks and whites to belong to the same unions. Vance Muse, one of the early developers of the policy in Texas, used that argument in the development of anti-union laws in Texas in the 1940s.[9]

Current status[edit]

The federal government operates under open shop rules nationwide, but many of its employees are represented by unions. Unions that represent professional athletes have written contracts that include particular representation provisions (such as in the National Football League),[10] 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."[11] Players on professional sports teams in states with right-to-work laws are thus subject to those laws and cannot be required to pay any portion of union dues as a condition of continued employment.[12]

Twenty-two states, as well as the District of Columbia, do not have right-to-work laws.

On November 18, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of local governments to enact local right-to-work laws in Kentucky, Ohio, and the other states of its jurisdiction.[13]


In favor[edit]

Minority rights and due process[edit]

The first arguments concerning the right to work centered around the rights of a dissenting minority with respect to an opposing majoritarian collective bargain. President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" had prompted many U.S. Supreme Court challenges, among which were challenges regarding the constitutionality of the National Industry Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA). In 1936, as a part of its ruling in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. the Court ruled against mandatory collective bargaining, stating: "The effect, in respect to wages and hours, is to subject the dissentient minority ... to the will of the stated majority .... To ‘accept’ in these circumstances, is not to exercise a choice, but to surrender to force. The power conferred upon the majority is, in effect, the power to regulate the affairs of an unwilling minority. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body ... but to private persons .... [A] statute which attempts to confer such power undertakes an intolerable and unconstitutional interference with personal liberty and private property. The delegation is so clearly arbitrary, and so clearly a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to decisions of this Court which foreclose the question."[14]

Freedom of association[edit]

Besides the U.S. Supreme Court, other proponents of right-to-work laws also point to the Constitution and the right to freedom of association. They argue that workers should both be free to join unions or to refrain, and thus, sometimes refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced unionism" states. These proponents argue that by being forced into a collective bargain, what the majoritarian unions call a fair share of collective bargaining costs is actually "financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice." An opponent to the union bargain is forced to "financially support an organization they did not vote for, in order to receive monopoly representation they have no choice over."[15]

Some religions, such as the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, prohibit or discourage the joining of unions,[16] citing Ellen White and the Loss of Free Will if you join a union.[clarification needed]


Proponents such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy contend that it is unfair that unions can require new and existing employees to either join the union or pay fees for collective bargaining expenses as a condition of employment under union security agreement contracts.[17] Other proponents contend that unions may still be needed in new and growing sectors of the economy, for example, the voluntary and third party sectors, to assure adequate benefits for new immigrant, "part-time" aides in America (e.g., US Direct Support Workforce).

Political contributions[edit]

Right-to-work proponents, including the Center for Union Facts, contend that political contributions made by unions are not representative of the union workers.[18] The agency shop portion of this had previously been contested with support of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, resulting in "Beck rights" preventing agency fees from being used for expenses outside of collective bargaining if the non-union worker notifies the union of their objection.[19]


Free riders[edit]

Opponents such as Richard Kahlenberg have argued that while it is an effective political slogan, the phrase "right-to-work" is a misnomer because the lack of such a law does not deprive anyone of the right to work. The Taft–Hartley Act (1947) outlawed the union-only "closed shops" which did deprive people of the right to work, and the "right to work" doesn't eliminate a worker's option of joining a work or labor union. A right-to-work law simply "gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it".[20][21][6][22] Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted agency fees so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted not to be a member. The right to challenge the fees must include the right to have it heard by an impartial fact finder.[23]

Freedom of contract and association[edit]

Opponents argue that right-to-work laws restrict freedom of association, and limit the sorts of agreements individuals acting collectively can make with their employer, by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include "fair share fees". Moreover, American law imposes a duty of fair representation on unions; consequently non-members in right to work states can and do force unions to provide without compensation grievance services that are paid for by union members.[24] Hence right-to-work laws are not neutral, but rather impose an active and artificial burden on labor unions.

In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote: "I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members."[25]

Corporate interests[edit]

Critics from organized labor have pointed out since the late 1970s[26] 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".[27]

The unions also contend that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee have 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, but now funds primarily conservative think tanks, media outlets, and university law programs.[27][28]

Kahlenberg and Marvit also argue that, at least in efforts to pass a right-to-work law in Michigan, excluding police and firefighter unions—traditionally less hostile to Republicans—from the law caused some to question claims that the law was simply an effort to improve Michigan's businesses climate, not to seek partisan advantage.[20]

Corporate interests have now involved the growing non-profit and voluntary sectors of the economy which "achieved parity in wages and benefits" to the state, unionized workforces, while not assuring provisions such as adverse hearings which benefit employees.

Studies of economic effect[edit]

According to Tim Bartik of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, studies of the effect of right-to-work laws "abound," but are not "consistent." Studies have found both "some positive effect on job growth," and no effect.[29] Thomas Holmes argues that it is difficult to analyze right-to-work laws by comparing states due to other similarities between states that have passed these laws. For instance, right-to-work states often have some strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws.[30] Looking at the growth of states in the Southeast following World War II, Bartik notes that while they have right-to-work laws they have also benefited from "factors like the widespread use of air conditioning and different modes of transportation that helped decentralize manufacturing".[31]

Economist Thomas Holmes compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.[32] However, given the study design, Holmes points out "my results do not say that it is right-to-work laws that matter, but rather that the 'probusiness package' offered by right-to-work states seems to matter."[33] Moreover, as noted by Kevin Drum and others, this result may reflect business relocation rather than an overall enhancement of economic growth, since "businesses prefer locating in states where costs are low and rules are lax."[34]

A February 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute found:[21]

  • Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state. The study goes on to say "How much of this difference can be attributed to RTW status itself? There is an inherent “endogeneity” problem in any attempt to answer that question, namely that RTW and non-RTW states differ on a wide variety of measures that are also related to compensation, making it difficult to isolate the impact of RTW status."[21]
  • The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
  • The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

A 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal comparing job growth in Ohio and Texas stated that from 1998 to 2008, Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, while Texas gained 1,615,000. The opinion piece suggested right-to-work laws might be among the reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, along with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the absence of a state income tax in Texas.[35] Another Wall Street Journal editorial in 2012, by the president and the labor policy director of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, reported 71% employment growth in right-to-work states from 1980 to 2011, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew just 32% during the same period.[36] The 2012 editorial also stated that since 2001, compensation in right-to-work states had increased 4 times faster than in other states.[36]


In January 2012, in the immediate aftermath of passage of Indiana's right-to-work law, Rasmussen Reports found that 74% of likely U.S. voters supported right-to-work laws, but "most also don’t think a non-union worker should enjoy benefits negotiated by the union."[37]

In Michigan in January through March 2013, a poll found that 43 percent of those polled thought the law would help Michigan's economy, while 41 percent thought it would hurt.[38]

U.S. states with right-to-work laws[edit]

Right-to-work states shown in turquoise.

The following states (28) 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.[43]

New Hampshire adopted a right-to-work bill in 1947, but it was repealed in 1949 by the state legislature and governor.[44]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Employer/Union Rights and Obligations". National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved 7 July 2017. 
  2. ^ Baird, Charles W. "Right to work before and after 14 (b)." Journal of Labor Research 19.3 (1998): 471-493.
  3. ^ a b "Michigan passes 'right-to-work' legislation". BBC News. December 11, 2012. 
  4. ^ a b Schneider, Mary Beth; Sikich, Chris (February 1, 2012). "Indiana Gov. Daniels signs 'right to work' bill; protest winds through Super Bowl Village". The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved February 1, 2012. 
  5. ^ Davey, Monica (March 9, 2015). "Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin Signs Bill Curbing Union Fees". The New York Times. Retrieved March 9, 2015. 
  6. ^ 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.
    Dinan, Elizabeth (January 14, 2011). "N.H. Rep. proposes right to work law". Seacoast Online. Retrieved 2012-12-11. 
  7. ^ Miller, Berkeley; Canak, William (1991). "From 'Porkchoppers' to 'Lambchoppers': The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 44 (2): 349–66. doi:10.2307/2524814. JSTOR 2524814. 
    Partridge, Dane M. (1997). "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition". Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 10 (2): 127–39. doi:10.1023/A:1025657412651. 
    Canak, William; Miller, Berkeley (1990). "Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 43 (2): 258–71. doi:10.2307/2523703. JSTOR 2523703. 
  8. ^ Roof, Tracy (2011). American Labor, Congress, and the Welfare State, 1935-2010. JHU Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781421400877. 
  9. ^ Colby, Gerard (1984). "Decade of Despair". Du Pont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain. Secaucus: Lyle Stewart. 
    "The racist roots of 'right to work' laws". Southernstudies.org. 2012-12-13. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
    Ames, Mark. "As 'Right To Work' becomes law in Wisconsin, a reminder of its inventor's racist past". Pando.com. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
    Muse, Vance (1986). "Making Peace with Grandfather". Texas Monthly. 14 (2): 142. 
    Mirer, J. (2013). "Right-to-Work Laws: History and Fightback". National Law. Guild Rev. 70: 30. 
  10. ^ NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012: Art. V, Sec. 1.
  11. ^ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.).
  12. ^ Orr v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).
  13. ^ "Appeals Court Upholds Local Right-to-Work Laws in Kentucky and Ohio". National Review. 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-12-08. 
  14. ^ Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, at 311 (1936).
  15. ^ Campbell, Simon. "Right-to-Work vs Forced Unionism". StopTeacherStrikes, Inc. Retrieved November 14, 2012. Fair share is compulsory dues. A non-union employee is forced to financially support an organization they did not vote for, in order to receive monopoly representation they have no choice over. It is financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. Money is forcibly withheld from non-union employees' paychecks and sent to a private organization. When an agency-shop agreement exists in a school district or county, every employee must pay dues to the union as a condition of their employment. They must pay-up or leave. Should anyone's ability to get or keep a job depend on whether they pay dues to a union? Non-union teachers have struggled in court to try and stop their forced dues from being used for political activity by the union. 
  16. ^ "What is the Adventist Church's stance on trade unions?". perspectives.adventist.org. 2016-10-04. Retrieved 2016-11-25. 
    Justice, Diana (2003-06-01). "Adventist Labor Unions". GleanerNow. Retrieved 2016-11-25. 
    "Lt 26, 1903 - Ellen G. White Writings". text.egwwritings.org. Retrieved 2016-11-25. 
  17. ^ Rae, La (1998-08-01). "Improvement #3: Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center]". Mackinac.org. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  18. ^ "Use of Dues for Politics". Center for Union Facts. Retrieved 2016-05-04. 
  19. ^ "How do I cut off the use of my dues for politics and other nonbargaining activities?". National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Retrieved 2016-05-04. 
  20. ^ a b Kahlenberg, Richard D.; Marvit, Moshe Z. (December 13, 2012). "Right to Work" Isn't a Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be". 
  21. ^ a b c Gould, Elise; Shierholz, Heidi (2011). "The Compensation penalty of "right-to-work" laws"" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-12-11. 
  22. ^ Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "States Seek Laws to Curb Power of Unions". The New York Times. 
  23. ^ Gregory, David L. "1997-1998 Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 392 (1997-1998): Contesting Union-Imposed Fees: Must Arbitration Precede Litigation (97-428)". heinonline: 392. Retrieved May 19, 2016. 
    Chicago Local Teachers Union v Hudson 475 U.S. 292. 310 (1986)
  24. ^ "Employer/Union Rights and Obligations". National Labor Relations Board. 
  25. ^ Tuccille, J.D. (2012-12-12). "When Right-To-Work Is Wrong and Un-Libertarian - Hit & Run". Reason.com. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  26. ^ "Examining the opposition's tangled web — the who's who in the right wing". The Machinist. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO/CLC. October 1977. p. 4. 
  27. ^ a b "Questions and Answers about the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" (PDF). United Auto Workers. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 6, 2008. 
  28. ^ "Meet the billionaires behind No Rights At Work". Teamster Nation. January 27, 2013. Retrieved February 14, 2013. 
  29. ^ Samples, Susan (December 12, 2012). "Studies mixed on right-to-work's impact". WOOD Television. Archived from the original on December 13, 2012. 
  30. ^ Holmes, Thomas J. (1998). "The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders". Journal of Political Economy. 106 (4): 667–705. doi:10.1086/250026. 
  31. ^ Evans, Gordon (December 10, 2012). "Upjohn Institute economist on right to work laws". WMUK. Retrieved 2017-02-26. 
  32. ^ Barro, Robert (February 28, 2011). "Opinion: Unions vs. the Right to Work". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-12-11. 
  33. ^ "The Location of Industry : Do States' Policies Matter?" (PDF). Cato.org. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  34. ^ "Unions and Growth". Motherjones.com. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  35. ^ Texas v. Ohio, "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags"| The Wall Street Journal| March 3, 2008| Accessed July 18, 2008.
  36. ^ a b Vernuccio, Vincent; Lehman, Joseph G. (December 14, 2012). "Vernuccio and Lehman: An Inspiration and a Warning From Michigan". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 18, 2012. 
  37. ^ "74% Favor Right-to-Work Law Eliminating Mandatory Union Dues - Rasmussen Reports™". Rasmussenreports.com. 2012-01-31. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  38. ^ "Poll: Michigan evenly divided on right-to-work law". MLive.com. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  39. ^ "Right to Work Laws: Arizona | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  40. ^ "Florida Constitution". The Florida Legislature. Retrieved 2014-07-11. 
    "Right to Work States: Florida | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  41. ^ "South Carolina Code of Laws § 41-7-10". 
  42. ^ "State Right-to-Work Timeline". National Right to Work Committee. Retrieved 2017-10-29. 
    "LABOR CODE CHAPTER 101. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  43. ^ "Right to Work States: Guam | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. 2000-05-15. Retrieved 2015-05-02. 
  44. ^ "A Conservative's Guide to the "Right to Work" Bill". NH LABOR NEWS. 2017-01-09. Retrieved 2017-11-06. 

External links[edit]

Opposed to right-to-work laws[edit]

Supported right-to-work laws[edit]