Right to Work State - Research Paper Example

Right To Work The Concept, History, Pros and Cons The following research includes five articles with information that support Right to Work states as well as non-Right to Work states. Included is an in depth study by Dr. Hari Singh of the Grand Valley State University of pros and cons for the Right to Work issue. The debate gives examples of court cases and legislation that support Right to Work and some that do not support Right to Work. A history is included that gives a background on the beginnings of Right to Work laws and how they came into existence. Finally, a map is included that shows the current Right to Work states and non-Right to Work states. Keywords: Right to Work, non-RTW, unions, Taft-Hartley, Right To Work State The Concept, History, Pros and Cons Introduction: Indiana has recently become the 23rd Right to Work state in the country. Right to Work is a theory aimed at benefiting employees. The concept essentially prevents employers from forcing employees to join a union and pay union fees. (Ottinger, 2012). Since there are currently 23 states that abide by Right to Work laws; there are also pros and cons to the concept. The research information contained in this essay will cover the history, pros and cons, for and against the concept of Right to Work and attempt to reach a conclusion by analyzing the collected information. The information will include examples of how the laws have been challenged in different states. Therefore, what do Right to Work states contribute to the working quality of employees, or do they, and how did the concept come into being? The History: Lets go back to 1935, under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wager Act), labor unions and employers were in control under closed shop rules. Translated this means that if you wanted to work for a company and a union was present you were required to be a part of that union. According to Abby Rapoport in an article in 2012, “The dream of the New Deal was they were going to northern-ize the South.” (Rapoport, 2012). The concept between 1937 and 1946 was a huge failure. Prominent business power brokers fought to keep their labor and racial platforms. When the Right to Work laws were passed, it weakened the labor union presence in the southern and western states. The legislation prevented unions from gaining a strong foothold and power in these areas. (Rapoport, 2012). The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 did not allow closed shop rules; however, union shop rules emerged and was considered the new game. (Singh, 2008). The rules changed but became more flexible. Bear in mind that these laws differ for each Right to Work state. The general policies stipulate that all workers are required to belong to the union within a 30-day period after they are employed. A union shop is a little different, and states that workers can be fired only if they fail to pay dues and are not members. They cannot be fired for any other factor that causes them not to be a member of the union. (Singh, 2008). The Taft-Hartley Act made it possible for each state to forbid union shops in their governing domain if they chose. However, local governments are not given the authority under Section 14 (b) of the Act to stop union shops from forming. (Singh, 2008). The controversy comes into play when those that do not join the union and pay dues still work under the same conditions as the workers that pay dues. (theohiolaborlawyers.com, 2008). This has resulted in Right to Work states showing a much lower rate of unionization. The 14 (b) Act has been brought up for repeal in Congress several times, but so far over the past several decades it has not happened. (theohiolaborlawyers.com, 2008). The 1950s were a controversial time for evaluating the laws in every state. The last state to adopt the Right to Work law was recently Indiana as the 23rd state. (Heritage.org, 2012). The Right to Work states are mostly seen in the south and west regions of the country. Normally the union rate member’s pay in RTW states is lower. (Singh, 2008). The Employees Free Choice Act (EFCA) adopted by the AFL-CIO supports Unions and makes it very easy to form unions. According to the EFCA, you only need 50 percent of the workers to sign a card to form a union and without a secret ballot. Under the EFCA the workers control the process of forming the union using a secret ballot which makes it much easier. Basically, the workers or employees run the show. (Singh, 2008). The RTW laws continue to be a controversy. The unions continue to want more power while the employees fight for the RTW laws; how does this effect the overall survival of companies and jobs? Right to Work (Positive): Anyone who has ever been a part of a union and paid union dues would probably give good feedback on how they protect the worker. Being part of a union and belonging to an organized group is seen as a positive. 1. The basic foundation of RTW laws supports constitutional rights of freedom to be a part of or not to be a part of a group. Employees should not be required to be part of a union. 2. Union dues, which are deducted from a paycheck, are used by union leaders as a way to support their political advancements and may not conform to what the workers believe. 3. Right to Work laws give more flexibility to the labor market in hiring practices, market wages, work schedules, and types of work assigned. The processes of production are more flexible with fewer rules. 4. Right to Work states normally focus on an abundance of manufacturing jobs with new plants and old plant expansions. 5. Right to Work states show higher economic growth as well as higher employment rates. (Singh, 2008). Looking at the differences in the Right to Work states and the non-RTW states, there are economic differences and business conditions that vary from state to state. Both RTW state and non-RTW state economies are driven by structural and cyclical changes. The recent recession has been a determining factor in the loss of jobs in all the states. However, between 2002 and 2009 there was a substantially bigger loss in the non-RTW states than the RTW states. (Singh, 2008). Some of the biggest losses have been in the Northern states such as Michigan and Ohio with as much as a 40 percent loss. While southern Right to Work states have shown an increase in percentages. Southern RTW states typically start with a lower wage base. Information shows a $20,000 difference in the base wages of northern non-RTW states (Michigan) of $74,000 southern RTW state (Tennessee) of $53,000. (Singh, 2008). The differences are attributed to cost of living and higher productivity. However, the non-RTW states show a substantial increase in union formation. Singh contends that there has been an average wage percentage increase of 14 percent from 2002 to 2009 for three of the major non-RTW states in the north (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana). However, in comparison six southern RTW states (Tennessee, S.Carolina, Kansas, Georgia, Texas, Alabama) show a 25 percentage increase. The information gives the impression that lower union organization in the RTW states does not effect wages in the long term. (Singh, 2008). It also suggests that many of the non-RTW state jobs have shifted to the southern RTW states. Other factors that effect the difference include a need for shifting trucking resources to other regions to cut costs, a shift from agricultural markets to more manufacturing, and a shift in population to warmer climates of the south. History has shown that RTW states are not supportive of unions, therefore, the business environment would attract more manufacturing even without RTW laws. (Singh, 2008). Other factors that come into play are demographics, business conditions, and tax incentives offered by RTW states to bring new plants into their areas. (Singh, 2008). Using the recently added Indiana as a Right to Work state example, they straddled the union and non-union regions of the country. (Rapoport, 2012). The southern part of the state is agricultural and borders Kentucky, while the northern part has relied on steel and auto industries and unionization for the last 80 years. Those in the state who support Right to Work laws felt that the legislation would free employers and bring in more jobs. The weakening union presence and power in Indiana voted in Right to Work laws. Rapoport quotes Jefferson Cowie, a labor historian at Cornell University, “The question has always been when will we organize the South?” (Rapoport, 2012). “But in fact the opposite happened. The South is slowly chipping away at the North and bringing the North into a lower wage, non-union economy.” (Rapoport, 2012). He also quoted Cowie as saying about Indiana, “Indiana, is sort of indicative of that war between the states.” (Rapoport, 2012). On March 6, 2012 in San Francisco, California, the Right to Work Foundation challenged union leaders for attempting to deduct full union dues from an employee who had formally resigned his union membership. The union faces a Federal lawsuit for an illegal forced dues scheme. (Riedel, 2012). In another case, hospital union officials face Federal charges for disclosure malpractice. Union officials deducted hundreds of dollars of forced union fees from nurse paychecks without proper disclosure. (Riedel, 2012). These are just a few examples of how unions can force their power on workers, and seen as a positive for Right to Work laws. Right to Work (Negative): There has been an erosion of union participation throughout the US, which now stands at around 20% since the 1950s. According to Elizabeth Olson in an article in CNN Money in January 2012, North Carolina has the lowest rate of unionization at 2.9 percent, next to South Carolina at 3.4 percent. This is attributed to the manufacturing and factory jobs disappearing over the last decade. (Olson, 2012). Deregulation and free trade have increased competition and unionization; companies cannot pass high labor costs on to the consumer, says James Sherk, who is an economic policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. (Olson, 2012). He contends that if the unionized companies raise prices, consumers will just do business elsewhere. (Olson, 2012). McCabe of Georgetown Business School said in January 2012 of Indiana becoming a Right to Work state, “I don’t think it will set off a tidal wave. But if more states pass this, unions will loose even more members.” (Olson, 2012). A Texas newspaper columnist adopted the term Right to Work a few decades ago and the term presents several meanings. First impressions would tell you, “it seems to be a declaration that there is a right to have a job,” states Dan Graff, University of Notre Dame. (Olson, 2012). However, it is a confusing statement and the US views it differently than any other country in the world. In 2001 Oklahoma voted Right to Work laws into their state, the last one before Indiana. The Chamber of Commerce in Indiana argued that more employers would see a positive to moving into Indiana if there was more flexibility in setting worker pay and thus incomes would rise. They also argue that in Right to Work states the incomes were higher in 2011 than in non-RTW states. Still using Indiana as an example, the Chamber contends that a 100% employment increase was seen in Right to Work states from 1977 to 2008. Compared to non-RTW states, only a 57 percent increase was seen. Indiana, known as the Hoosier state, lost a significant amount of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Other Right to Work states gained; however, each state has its own unique circumstances in population growth, skilled worker availability and access to business resources and infrastructure. (Olson, 2012). Dr. Harry Singh of the Grand Valley State University contends that, 1. Right to Work laws could result in free riders. These persons would get the benefits of the union without paying the dues. He contends there would not be much incentive to pay dues. 2. Employers would have more power and employees would be paid lower wages. 3. Benefits would be cut in Right to Work states in health care and pension plans. 4. Right to Work states virtually have less job security and workers can be fired for any reason. 5. Right to Work states also don’t take necessary safety precautions which could result in tragic workplace accidents and injuries. (Singh, 2008). In 2007 the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation sited a case in which Right to Work laws were held constitutional. In the case of Davenport v. Washington Education Association, the court ruled since unions have no constitutional right to collect fees from nonmembers, a state can make the unions obtain affirmative consent before spending nonmember forced fees on political activities. The decision reverted back to 1949s original decision that Right to Work laws are constitutional. Another case in 1998, Airline Pilots Association v. Miller, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2, opinion given by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, that employees who do not agree with union arbitration are not required to exhaust the process before going to the courts for a decision on their collective bargaining fees. This is a victory for phony internal union arbitration schemes by union leaders to block union legislation. This is seen as a negative to Right to Work laws. (nrtw.org, 2012). As far back as 1949 in the case of Lincoln Federal Union v. Northern Iron and Metal Co. 335 U.S. 525, the court ruled that state Right to Work laws were constitutional. In Seattle, Washington in March 2012 the courts ruled against a claim by Stephanie Kalfayan to pay forced union dues. The decision was reached because of monopoly bargaining in her workplace and the fact that Washington does not have Right to Work laws as protection for its workers. The case highlights a need for state Right to Work laws. (nrtw.org, 2012). The Stronger Debate: Joining a union does not guarantee you that you can negotiate your term of employment. Even in Right to Work states members can strike, however, they cannot prevent other employees from still working. The union can negotiate contract terms for its members but cannot force biding for employees who do not belong to the union. Therefore, unions are still present in states that have Right to Work laws. What unions do, according to Bruce Walker in 2012, is “place unionized labor in the free market, competing with non-unionized labor.” (Walker, 2012). He contends that free labor, like free business in the long run is good for everyone. Conservatives support Right to Work laws mainly for economic common sense. Leftists normally control organizations of power and bureaucracies. Labor unions provide more than money; they provide muscle. Big labor normally supports the left and the Democrats even when Republicans voice moderate opinions toward it. The left and Democrats who support the big labor unions use their power and money to control Congress, influence state governments, and win national elections. Walker contends that its time for a National Right to Work law. He contends that forcing unions to compete in the marketplace for members would reduce their power. He sees the unions without monetary backing and member support; the Democrats would not be able to control Congress or have the influence over state governments that they have had in the past. (Walker, 2012). America desperately needs an edge in economic competitiveness all over the world that free labor would provide. He contends that unions are a “redundant layer of bureaucracy parroting incessantly the false theme of management exploitation.” (Walker, 2012). He also contends that free markets function more openly to deal with problems of bad employers more effectively than union strong arms do. (Walker, 2012). This seems to be a Marxist view that owners of business exploit workers. Republicans seem to have a fear of union leaders, but this was discounted when President Reagan fired Air Traffic Controllers who struck illegally. He fought to keep union leftists under control when quoted, “What are they going to do? Hang us from a higher tree?” (Walker, 2012). Opinion and Conclusion: One would gather from the information that Right to Work laws work to provide protection for the employee versus the employer. For over three decades the issue of Right to Work has been debated among congressional members. As stated earlier in the information, legislation has been slow to change concerning RTW laws. There appears to be political implications for any congressional member who publicly supports Right to Work. (NILRR Staff, 2002). In 1991 the “Pushbutton Strike” bill was introduced to support forced unionization, but a CNN poll in 1992 and Marketing Research Institute poll in 1993 showed a two-to-one ratio Americans opposed the bill. (nilrr.org, 2002). Big labor claimed these polls were wrong, however, in 1992 and 1994 many of the supporters were voted out of office. In 2000 some of the GOP candidates lost due to their positions on Right to Work, however, some have yet remained strong as well. It seems to be a political fight between lobbying unions of the left and free labor and free competition markets of the right. (nilrr.org, 2002). It is understandable that states want the protection that Right to Work brings to their states, however, it is also understandable why unions object to it so strongly. When Idaho and Oklahoma passed Right to Work, their union memberships fell 15 percent. The same is true of other states that have passed Right to Work laws. Union members claim that Right to Work laws are detrimental to keeping their wages high, which is the crux of the union movement. However, most studies show that Right to Work laws have little effect on employee salaries either way. (heritage.org, 2012). Even though workers may reject unions, they still want a voice in the workplace. Current laws don’t support non-union employers and employees working together to improve working conditions. However, employee involvement programs can present positive working conditions, help companies pick up valuable employees and create an environment suitable to all workers as well as the company. Congress should make a substantial effort to give employees and employers this flexibility. In states that still force employees to pay union dues, legislation should give employees the right to work without fear of union backlash. (Heritage.org, 2012). The map on the next page shows the current Right to Work States; Indiana (not in blue ), was recently added. (newyorkemploymentlawyerblog.com, 2012). References: Heritage.org. 30 January 2012. Right to Work in 22 States, Indiana Will Become 23rd State. Web. 17 April 2012. http://hawaiireporter.com/. National Right to Work. 2012. Foundation for Supreme Court Precedents. Web. 17 April 2012. http://nrtw.org/. NILRR Staff. 01 January 2002. History 101, Right to Work: A Winning Issue. Web. 17 April 2012. http://nilrr.org/2002/. Olson, Elizabeth G. 31 January 2012. What right-to-work laws really mean. Web. 17 April 2012. http://management.fortune.cnn.com/. Potential Repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. 17 December 2008. Web. 17 April 2012. http://theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress.com/. Rapoport, Abby. 2012. The state’s history with organized labor encompasses the country’s Pro-and anti-union forces. Web. 17 April 2012. http://prospect.org/articles/. Riedel, Anthony. 2012. 17 April 2012. Employee from Non-Profit Defense Firm Defends Her Rights from SEIU Union Hierarchy. Web. 17 April 2012. http://nrtw.org/. Riedel, Anthony. 2012. 23 March 2012. Hospital Union Officials Face Federal Charges for Disclosure Malpractice. Web. 17 April 2012. http://nrtw.org/. Riedel, Anthony. 2012. 06 March 2012. Public Employee Union Faces Federal Lawsuit for Illegal Forced Dues Scheme. 17 April 2012. http://nrtw.org/. Singh, Hari Dr. 2008. Right to Work and Economic Impact, What it means for Michigan. Web. 18 April 2012. http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/. The Pros and Cons of the Right to Work. 31 January 2012. Web. 17 April 2012. http://newyorkemploymentlawyerblog.com/. Walker, Bruce. 11 January 2012. Time for National Right to Work. Web. 17 April 2012. http://americanthinker.com/. Read More