Right-to-Work: A Primer
What are Right-to-Work laws? Why are they bad for BAC members? Who’s behind state and national Right-to-Work initiatives? These are some of the questions that this and future articles in the Journal will explore. This series should give everyone a new appreciation for this quote by the late President Harry S. Truman in 1947:
“You will find some people saying they are for so-called Right-to-Work law,
but they also believe in unions. This
is absurd—it’s like saying you are for motherhood but against children.”
The anti-union roots of Right-to-Work
initiatives run deep. In the early 1900s, employers started the anti-worker “open shop” movement to combat gains being made by organized labor and the growth of unions. Passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 hurt these efforts by guaranteeing every worker the right to organize and join a union. It also allowed employers and unions to include a union security clause (a requirement that all employees join the union) in their collective bargaining agreements. Following passage of the NLRA, union membership grew, and workers’ wages and working conditions improved.
In 1947, a conservative U.S. Congress, determined to stop the growth of unions fueled by the pro-labor 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), passed the Taft-Hartley Act. This Act weakened the country’s labor laws and included several union-busting provisions, including Section 14B, the so-called Right-to-Work provision. This provision allowed states to pass laws that prohibited employers and unions from agreeing to require union membership as a condition of employment.
In the early 1950s the National Right-to-Work Committee was formed to promote
the passage of Right-to-Work laws and other anti-labor initiatives. Among its founders was Congressman Hartley, a co-sponsor of the Taft-Hartley Act. Since its inception, the National Right-to-Work Committee has actively pro-moted passage of state and national Right-to-Work (RTW) laws.
Today there are 21 states and two territories (American Samoa and Guam) that have RTW laws. In all but three cases, these RTW laws were passed before 1965. The most recent “victory” for the National Right to Work Committee occurred just last year with passage of RTW legislation in Guam. This ended the Committee’s losing streak, and reinvigorated its anti-union agenda. The Committee received an additional boost earlier this year when George W. Bush became President. According to the June 2000 issue of the National Right to Work Newsletter: “If Mr. Bush retains his lead and stays true to his word, next year could be a momentous one for Right to Work.”
 |
In states where such laws exists, all employees working under a union’s collective bargaining agreement are entitled to all the union’s protections and benefits (wage increases, pension and health benefits, safer working conditions, and representation on the job). But these employees are not required to join the union or pay their fair share of negotiating and administering the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, RTW laws allow some workers a “free-ride.”
This situation undermines worker solidarity and creates economic incentives for workers to not join the union. Ultimately, RTW laws can weaken local unions by making it difficult to collect the funds necessary to represent workers, bargain for better wages and working conditions, and administer the collective bargaining agreement.
For working families, RTW laws have added up to a right to work for less. Despite claims that RTW laws are good for the economy, there is no sound economic argument for this type of legislation. States with RTW laws have lower wages and poorer working conditions than free-bargaining (not RTW) states according to the Campaign for Workers’ Rights. Just look at the results:
| › |
Union membership. The rate of union membership in RTW states is on average one-half that of free-bargaining states. (Source: AFL-CIO) |
| › |
Wages. The annual average pay in the RTW states is $5,000 less than in free-bargaining states. None of the 21 RTW states has an average annual pay level above the national average. Six of the ten states with the lowest average annual pay are RTW. In contrast, the ten states with the highest average annual pay are free-bargaining states. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor) |
| › |
Working Conditions. Only 19% of RTW states have job fatality rates lower than the national average. In contrast, fatality rates in 70% of free-bargaining states are below the national average. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor) |
| › |
Education. Twelve of the 15 states investing the lowest amount per pupil in public schools are RTW states. In contrast, the 15 states with the highest expenditure per pupil were free-bargaining states. (U.S. Department of Education) |
| › |
Health Insurance. Seven of the 10 states with the highest percentage of the population without health insurance are RTW states. In contrast, 8 of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of uninsured are free-bargaining states. (U.S. Bureau of the Census) |
|
|
Clearly, as an economic issue, RTW laws have more to do with tipping the economic scales in favor of business interests by diminishing the ability of workers to have a say in their wages and working conditions, than giving workers “rights.”
Learn more about current legislative initiatives to pass RTW laws in the next issue of the Journal. Until then, no one can tell the story of RTW like someone who is trying to make a living, negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, or organize in a RTW environment. We’d like to hear from you. Please send your comments to:
AC Communications Department
ATTN: Right-to-Work
815 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
|