The right-to-work law is a central provision that gives employees the freedom to choose whether to join a workers union or not. As such, under this law, employees have some freedom at the workplace, even in a unionized environment, to decide whether to pay union dues for representation. The debate on this law has intensified in the recent past due to the dynamic nature of the business world across the globe. This paper will explore the history of “Right to Work laws”, the views of its proponents and opponents, and the implication of these laws to the future of the American nation.
The Right-to-Work Debate
The history of the right-to-work laws dates back to the colonial and revolutionary period in the US, during which most Americans practiced agriculture. The number of laborers, which included artisans, apprenticed servants, and slaves, had increased significantly. The major cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston harbored most laborers who agitated against poor working conditions and low wages (Anderson, 2015). During the industrial revolution, a substantive increase in laborers’ number was witnessed because many Americans transitioned from agricultural to industrial jobs. In the late 19th century, unions such as the National labor union and Knights of labor were formed. However, the organized labor movements received some public resistance when a Chicago police officer died in an explosion after one of the striking laborers threw a dynamite stick.
In July 1935, the National labor relations act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt (Anderson, 2015). According to the law, this was a major booster in the union activity because unionists and employees received greater political protection. The employees got a right to self-organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Additionally, the Act compelled employers to pay the labor unions for defending and protecting their interests (Anderson, 2015). The Act also imposed a compulsory union membership to all the employees in any given organization, restricting employment to the registered members only. However, in 1947, Congress made some amendments to the Act, and President Harry Truman passed the Act through his vital power (Anderson, 2015). The amendments led to the current Right-to-work law that allows various states to protect the employees against compulsory union membership as a condition for employment in both the public and private sectors. Currently, only 28 states have enacted the Right-to-work law, and the employees now have the right and freedom to associate with the union of their choice.
Right to work laws has ignited a hotly contested debate on social and political scenes. The debate is increasingly taking Center stage as states strive to improve workers’ welfare, create more job opportunities, and attract new investors. Supporters of the right to work Act argue that a worker should have the freedom to decide whether to pay dues to the union (Andrias, 2016). If the union offers good services to the client, the worker would be convinced to voluntarily join the union and pay the dues to continue enjoying those services. If the workers do not get sufficient value from the union, nobody should compel them to continue supporting it. According to Thomas Jefferson, compelling workers to support a union’s ideologies they do not believe in is sinful and oppressive.
Opponents of right-to-work laws argue that such laws are meant to cripple the unions because people who are not bona fide members usually benefit from the unions’ negotiations without incurring any cost. The federal law compels unions to defend and protect all the workers’ interests at any given company, whether they pay union dues or not hence placing the union in a shaky situation. Under this Act, people can withdraw from the union without paying a single cent but still enjoy union representation (Andrias, 2016). If they were full members, the federal law would cover them because the union cannot negotiate on a package that will discriminate against the non-members. However, negotiations are ongoing to allow the unions to represent and bargain for the dues-paying members only.
Politically, it is argued that right-to-work laws are meant to lessen the unions’ impact in terms of influence and political power. When a union has little financial muscles, it will offer little support to political candidates and their initiatives. It is believed that most unions support Democratic politicians in their endeavors to power (Chava, Danis, & Hsu, 2017). The right-to-work laws, which are typically supported by Republicans, are geared towards weakening the support accorded to the Democrats by the unions, especially at the state level.
The enactment of Right-to-work laws has increased the worker’s life satisfaction. Employees who do not have to pay the union dues to become members can use the same monies to impact their lives positively. The concept of free-riding members in a union is baseless because labor unions do not equally benefit all their members. For instance, when unions use the experience as the basis of promotion for the union members, it harms the young, talented, and ambitious workers who aspire to grow in their profession. Additionally, right-to-work laws improve the employee-employer relationships and ultimately encourage the unions to offer better services to the clients (Chava et al., 2017). This law creates an open and trustworthy relationship and makes an excellent environment for the employees’ optimum work. The majority of the democratic politicians are against the Right-to-work laws, perhaps due to their selfish interests. These laws harm their political ambitions, which is why they do not put the benevolent concerns of the workers first. Therefore, the benefits of the enactment of this law far outweigh its demerits.
Right-to-work laws in America seem to be gaining prominence in the recent past. Several states have enacted this law, and many labor unions are losing public support. Union membership is on the decline, which is an indicator that policymakers need to rethink labor unions’ place in contemporary society. In the past, mistreated workers could seek refuge from the unions for decent pay and a safe working environment (Chava et al., 2017). However, most labor unions have turned into political vehicles that politicians use to enrich their selfish interests. Unions have evolved into organizations that push for political agendas rather than take care of union members’ interests. Notably, the union leadership has benefited more as compared to the union members. More states will enact these laws to spur economic growth. It is indisputable that many companies prefer establishing themselves in those states that have passed the Right-to-work laws.
Conclusion
Right-to-work laws open more economic opportunities, such as corporate investment and employment. The states and business communities should move on and strengthen this legislation because this is the future of America. In a right-to-work state, employees can decide to join a labor union and still stop paying the union dues. In essence, they can continue enjoying the benefits gained through collective bargaining agreements even without any financial commitment to the union. Given that many companies emphasize the right-to-work when making decisions on location, there is no doubt that managers and directors will continue to prefer those states that have enacted the Right-to-work laws when setting up businesses in the future.
References
Anderson, E. (2015). Equality and freedom in the workplace: Recovering republican insights. Social Philosophy & Policy, 31(2), 48-69.
Andrias, K. (2016). The new labor law. Yale Law Journal, 126(1), 1-100.
Chava, S., Danis, A., & Hsu, A. (2017). The impact of right-to-work laws on worker wages: evidence from collective bargaining agreements. Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business, 18(1), 1-70.