Introduction
The right-to-work laws give employees the liberty to choose whether to join a union or not in their workplaces. This paper seeks to explore the history of such laws in the United States and summarize the perceptions of its opponents and proponents. Finally, it will be concluded whether the states that have already adopted the laws should consider a repeal of them in the United States.
The History of Right to Work Laws
The right-to-work regulations have had a tremendous historical influence on the American labor unions. The rules were primarily introduced to maintain the labor relations of Jim Crow and to counter the Jewish cabal fomenting a revolution. The notion is evidenced by the editorial writer of Dallas Morning News, William Ruggles, who advocated for the amendment’s passage in the United States Constitution (Feigenbaum et al., 2018). On the Labor Day of 1941, Ruggles called for an amendment to prohibit the formation of unions (Peck, 2016). Vance Muse, a member of the Christian American Association, widely regarded as a white supremacist and a supporter of communism, is credited for advocating for the idea of the right-to-work laws as a conservatives political agenda (Szymanski & Wells, 2020, p. 68). He was therefore one of the key leading figures in convincing people to embrace the idea of right to work laws.
Muse opposed labor unions on behalf of the working class individuals because of payment. He visited Ruggles to secure his blessing for a campaign that would outlaw contracts requiring employees to belong to unions. Muse fought for women’s suffrage, lobbied for higher tariffs, and pushed for the repeal of a law requiring railroaders to work eight hours a day. Throughout his career, he also made efforts towards defeating the amendments to the Constitution that prohibited child labor.
Proposal for Right to Work
The United States President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA in 1935. The Act, also known as the Wagner Act, protected employee rights to form a self-organized body and mandated employers to participate in collective bargaining and negotiations. Epstein (2018) argues that negotiations mostly pertain to employment with the self-organized bodies, referred to as labor unions. In 1947, the then U.S. President Harry Truman amended parts of the Wagner Act, passing the Taft-Harley Act (Feigenbaum et al., 2018). The current right-to-work laws resulted from the Wagner Act.
The Current Status of the Right to Work Laws
Over the years, the right-to-work laws have managed to penetrate different areas in America. For instance, it is currently operational in about twenty-eight states, with the remaining states unsure whether to ratify it or not (Feigenbaum et al., 2018). It means that the pro-right to work states have given employees the freedom of association with union parties about their career path. Those yet to adopt the laws require employees to cater to union fees and dues as employment terms. Labor unions remain effective in states that have ratified the right to work laws. The states’ regulations have been critical in protecting workers regarding their occupation by paying for union fees, an elective decision unbound to the employee’s service pact. The states that already enacted this law have illegalized binding union contracts. Therefore, the rules provide workers with an opportunity to enjoy immense benefits such as collective bargaining.
Summary of Both Sides of the Right to Work
The supporters of the right to work mostly subscribe to the freedom of association and the constitution. They claim that workers should be able to choose when to associate with a lobbying group or refrain from joining it through both techniques. As such, states without the right to work laws are commonly perceived as ‘states with forced unionism.’ The supporters argue that being compelled into a collective bargain is equivalent to being financially coerced. A monetary compulsion is thus a form of violation of freedom of choice (Epstein, 2018). In short, those against union bargains may be intimidated to economically support a labor union they never voted for, thereby receiving monopolist representation they never decided.
Both adversaries and promoters concur that the right-to-work laws hasvedestabilised unions by denying their funding. The non-alignment of workers to a labor union or an organization weakens such institutions. In right-to-work states, protected employees who do not affiliate to a union share equal rights, benefit and pay the same as employees who are not covered. The proponents of right-to-work laws concur that employees should not be obligated to be part of a union if they have no interest (Chava et al., 2020). All states that have implemented the laws usually find it easy to attract more business than those that have refused. Therefore, most companies and investors prefer to function in environments where threats or workplace disputes of labor strikes would not interfere with their business operations.
The opponents state that the laws on right-to-work restrict the freedom of association. The regulations also limit certain agreements employees acting as a union can make with their employer, for instance, by prohibiting organizations and workers from accepting a contract that encompasses fair share fees. As such, the duty on fair representation imposed by some laws often makes nonaligned members in right-to-work states feel compelled to provide grievance services paid for by union members.
A Personal Opinion on Right-to-Work
Employees and employers need to have the freedom of choice and association without coercion from an entity. Workers ought to be allowed to decide whether or not to belong to a union. Instead of forcing them to embrace a movement, employers should engage with personnel to obtain their views and backgrounds. Such a process will help organizations to decipher whether an individual is fit to become a member. For instance, the Seventh Day Adventist Church does not advocate for joining a union due to the infringement of the right to choose freely. It is unethical when personnel is forced to join workers’ unions or submit union representation fees. Regardless of the wages an employee earns, they should never be coerced to be part of an organization. Federal laws obligate unions to represent all workers, no matter whether they pay unions or not. Therefore, it means that the right-to-work laws favor employers and unions more than employees.
Prediction for Right to Work in America
The right-to-work laws have not been entirely accepted in the whole of the United States. The regulations which were introduced by the Republicans under President Donald Trump have reduced employees’ wages and weakened workers’ collective bargaining power in Wisconsin (Szymanski & Wells, 2020). The rules have significantly ignored the voices of workers in states that have signed them. For instance, they have continued to lower wages and employees’ economic well-being across the twenty-eight states. It could be the probable reason why dozens of states have not signed it. For this reason, coupled with the fact that the U.S has a more mature democracy, I strongly believe that sooner or later, the pro-right to work law states will consider a repeal.
References
Chava, S., Danis, A., & Hsu, A. (2020). The economic impact of right-to-work laws: Evidence from collective bargaining agreements and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 137(2), 451–469.
Epstein, R. A. (2018). The misconceived modern attack on right to work laws. University of Chicago Legal Forum., 2017, 5.
Feigenbaum, J., Hertel-Fernandez, A., & Williamson, V. (2018). From the bargaining table to the ballot box: Political effects of right to work laws. In NBER Working Papers (No. 24259; NBER Working Papers). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Peck, J. (2016). The right to work, and the right at work. Economic Geography, 92(1), 4–30.
Szymanski, S., & Wells, R. (2020). Labor studies and the political economy of Trump. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2020(165), 63–76.