> Varies from state to state. Some states have union requirements for certain sectors, or as businesses are either unionized or not. Right to work states make it so that there can be no requirement to join a union.
Even under right-to-work laws, the employees can still be required to be covered under the union contract. Right-to-work laws just mean that the union can't forcibly withhold or charge dues from people who aren't union members.
That law has a loophole: Force the worker to pay the union even if they don't join it. So unless you live in a right to work state that law doesn't mean much.
The law bans employers from requiring people to be union members before they are hired. In states without right to work laws it is still legal to require employees to join the union after being hired.
Unionization is not banned in any state. Your link does not agree with your dishonest comment.
Right to work laws simply prohibit collusion between unions and employers to prevent non-union workers from working. They are no different than other worker protection laws, e.g. the laws prohibiting Apple and Microsoft from forming an anti-poaching agreement.
Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law. The free rider problem will destroy any possibility of collective bargaining. That's why I think it's disingenuous to say:
If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer.
Well you can't really 'opt out' of the benefits of their negotiation in that way, and for the same reason you can't opt out of the union. You're not talking about a future with some unions where people can also choose to go it alone, you're talking about a future with no unions at all. At least be honest about that.
> Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union.
They say no such thing. They say that companies can't form agreements to exclusively hire union workers. They outlaw essentially non-competes in the opposite direction. A non-compete agreement binds a worker to exclusivity with a company. The agreements outlawed by right-to-work laws bind companies to exclusivity with a union.
I've asked about this before and have never gotten a clear answer. What legislated privileges are granted? A voluntary union could still collectively bargain. They could all agree to make the same demand and all quit or strike if said demand is not met. That doesn't require federal law.
I do believe there are some protections against companies firing everyone when they attempt to collectively bargain. Which is nice I guess. But not a requirement to form an effective union.
That's not what "right to work" means. "Right to work" laws prevent unions and employers from forming a contract where the employer agrees to only employ members of the union.
18 days ago, I pointed out that there are teachers unions in right to work states. I also pointed out that right to work laws simply allow employees to work without joining the union. They do not prohibit unionization or collective bargaining.
Most (all?) right to work states have a law saying the union can't voluntarily contract with the firm to put in terms say new hires would be part of the union and have to pay dues.
Alabama for instance blocks such agreements:
> Any agreement/combination between employer and labor union or organization denying nonmembers right to work is prohibited; labor organizations cannot require membership, abstention, or payment of union dues.
Even if the union is unanimous in agreement to require dues and make things a union shop with an agreement that new employees will be in it too (through their employment agreement), that free agreement between union and firm is outlawed, even if it is unanimous.
It is a masterstroke of "right-to-work" propaganda that even "I support all free contracts" Ayn Rand people don't know this.
Missippi:
> State "right-to-work" statutes generally prohibit employers and unions from requiring employees to be union members or pay membership dues membership in order for to get and keep a job. In addition to statutory provisions dating back to 1954, Mississippi had right-to-work guarantees added to the state constitution in 1960.
From what I can see such a free agreement between union and business is prohibited in every right-to-work state:
Please read the wikipedia article before spreading further misinformation. In fact, "right to work laws" simply allow non-union members to negotiate their own employment agreement with a company.
Your comment is like saying Comcast isn't much use in municipalities where Google Fiber (or other competition) is legal. If that's true, it's merely illustrating that the monopoly provider is creating no value for customers.
The law gives unions rights essentially as a political deal in exchange for other restrictions on unions. In exchange for the law forcing companies to bargain with unions and giving some protections:
* Unions can't strike when they have a contract in place
* Unions can't strike in solidarity with each other (ie the teamsters can't strike to help a longshorement strike)
* There can't be more than one union covering the same workforce
No? In fact, the correlation goes the other way - most states which ban unions security clauses in contracts have legally enforceable non-competes whereas California (for instance) which has no such ban on voluntary contract does not allow for non-competes.
Regardless, "right to work" is more about banning certain union contracts than about providing some "right" to have a job or anything like that.
The first unions existed before there were laws to protect them. Eg, the bootmakers of the Boston Journeymen Bootmaker's Society used collective action in the early 1800s, even before their right to do so was explicitly decided in Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842).
Yes, there are laws to protect unions. You cannot look at that in isolation. There are also laws to prevent some types of collective bargaining. Think of it more as a negotiated arrangements - unions agreed to avoid some behaviors in exchange for certain legal rights.
For example, in a free market, a union should be able to use its collective bargaining power to negotiate a closed shop arrangement with an employer. This is illegal in the US. In the same free market, employers can agree to blacklist people because of their union membership. This is also illegal in the US.
We could remove all laws which would protect unions, leaving them hobbled by all the laws which prevent them from fully exercising collective bargaining. But pressure builds up, as you can see by the (successful) wildcat strike this year by teachers in West Virginia.
reply