The Right to Work - Employment Relations Act - Research Paper Example

The Right to Work - Employment Relations Act Introduction The right to work is a fundamental principle, which is identifiable with at least 22 states in the US with regard to labor laws, precisely the Taft-Hartley act. This is an act of parliament was passed in 1947 and it attracted a lot of opposition from labor leaders and most importantly from the then president Harry Truman who viewed it as an attempt to intrude on the freedom of speech. It is known as Taft-Hartley act due to the fact that it was as a result of a joint effort of two members of congress i.e. Robert Taft, a senator, and Fred Hartley from the House of Representatives (Decker and Covington, 2002). The formal name for the legislation was the Labor Management Relations Act (Decker and Covington, 2002). Apparently, the act was aimed at protecting workers from forced unionization and gave them the freedom to decide on whether or not to join labor unions but still enjoy job security (NRTW, 2011). This paper is a critical evaluation of labor relations in the states of Texas and New York in terms of the right to work. Labor Relations in Texas and New York The right to work as per the US labor laws protects workers from losing their jobs or applicants being denied job opportunities on the basis of their affiliation with labor unions either financially or otherwise (NRTW, 2011). In this context, it would be important to mention that labor organizations are an important entity in the society, which, among other responsibilities, fights for the betterment of employee’s lives by acting as a unified force through which workers concerns and grievances are presented to the relevant stakeholders such as employers and the government at large for consideration. In general, labor unions are supposed to be the major champions and defenders of workers’ rights to ensure that they are not discriminated in any way by scrupulous agencies and employers. However, it is notable that some labor laws in different states in the US provide for the same unions to trample on some of the fundamental rights of employees that are included even in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states categorically that it is every person’s right to work. Such states are for example New York, which is pro forced unionization. In New York State, unions are given the right to demand for union fees from employees as a condition for their continued employment (FindLaw 2011). To achieve this, the employers work hand in hand with the unions to ensure that the fees are deducted from the salaries and delivered to the unions. If an employee refuses to pay up, they are faced with the possibility of losing their jobs, a factor which is categorized as a major challenge especially for the young generations, who opt to move to other states such as Texas, which have the right to work. Proponents of forced unionization base their argument on the fact that, when unions participate in bargaining for workers benefits such as salary increment, healthy working conditions among others, the result is that all employees enjoy the returns regardless of whether they are union members or not. As such, it s considered only natural to therefore demand for union fees since the unions, though non profit making, have to take care of their expenditure incurred in their course of doing business(Decker and Covington, 2002). The article 20, also referred as the New York State Employment Relations Act defines labor relations in the state, including the right of employees, employers and the role of labor unions in New York. Article 20 respects the freedom of association of every employee to join and participate in labor organizations of their choice. All employees are free to participate in concerted efforts with an objective of collective bargaining without fear of victimization from the employers. Article 20 also stipulates laws governing the conduct and role of labor organizations in the state of New York. Some of the stipulated unfair labor practices in the state include spying on the employees and blacklisting individuals with the intention of preventing them from being employed or retaining their jobs (Article 20). Other illegal activities by labor organizations in the state include interfering with the formation, administration and existence of employee organization with the intention of collaborating with employers to influence the terms and conditions of employment, grievances, or labor disputes. In addition, article 20 forbids labor organizations in the state from compelling job seekers or employees to join any company union or organization against their will as a precondition for employment. Moreover, labor organization are not permitted force employees or job seekers from forming, joining or helping a particular union against the employees will as a prerequisite for securing a job(FindLaw 2011). In the state of Texas, chapter 101 defines labor laws, regarding the employees, employers and the labor organizations. The labor relations in Texas allow employees the right of free bargaining. This employee right was enacted in 1993 and it accords every person in the state the right to work and bargain without any inhibitions with a prospective employer. An employee or a job seeker is at liberty to bargain as an individual or join a labor organization that would collectively negotiate and fight for the improvement of working terms and conditions. In addition, labor relations in Texas respect the terms of employment of an individual and forbids denial or infringement by law or any labor organizations (Semmense 2011). Texas labor laws stipulate that the agreement or contract for withholding union dues from employee compensation is not legally permitted without the employee permission. Therefore, joining a labor union in the state does not automatically imply that the union should start deducting money from workers salaries unless the employee writes formally to request the union to make specific deductions. The written consent forms for making deductions are submitted to the employer who enforces the agreement to retain the money. Texas labor laws prohibit an employee or a prospective employee from being discriminated against in employment because of his or her membership status to labor unions. In this respect, person should not be denied employment because he is a member or not a member of labor union (Semmense, 2011). Labor relations in Texas are categorical on employment contracts that require or disallow membership to labor unions. Employment contracts in the state are not valid if they require an employee or job applicant to be a member of labor union. In addition, labor relations in the state do not require employees to continue being members of labor union in the course of their employment contracts. Therefore, the state labor relations are flexible and they do not require validity of employment contracts to be determined by the association to labor unions (NRTW 2011). The activities of labor unions have great influence on the economic aspects of every country and United States is not an exception. According to Dannin (2008), labor unions penetrate all types of businesses and industrial ventures. Labor unions command high public interest and following and people depend on the organizations to advance their rights and interests to the government and the employers. In view of this crucial role of labor unions, Texas labor relations recognize the importance of protecting the rights of employers without considering they are unionized or not. The labor relations in the state affirm that the right to work is the right to live (NRTW 2011). In this respect, denying a person work for whatever reason is tantamount to denying him or her right to live. Therefore, it is in the policy of Texas State to control the activities and dealings of labor unions, their agents and representatives to ensure that they play their role effectively in representing the interests of employees. As such, no labor union, agents, or their representatives are permitted to collect fee from the public without due adherence to the established laws. From the labor relations of New York and Texas states, there are several similarities and differences pertaining to labor unions. In the state of New York, which is a forced union state, all employees are supposed to be members of labor unions. This membership means that unions deduct their fees automatically, without the consent of the employees. In this respect, forced union states hold membership to labor union as a precondition for securing and maintaining jobs in the areas of jurisdiction. Labor relations in the right to work states such as Texas do not discriminate employees and jobseekers based on their membership to labor unions. Therefore, every person, regardless of his labor union membership is free to secure and search for employment. Besides the freedom to choose whether to become labor union members, the rights to work states do not deduct union dues from labor union members without the members consent. Both right to work and forced union labor laws in the United States have profound social and economic effects to the American society. Employees are increasingly becoming aware of the negative effects of forced unionisms in states that practice the tradition, such as New York. According to Semmense (2011) states that have forced union policy are increasingly experiencing labor shortage, because many people are moving to states that have right to work policy. In 2009, Semmense (2011) recorded noted a 20% increase in the rate of migration from forced union states to right to work states compared to 1999 migration. The most affected group was young people aged between 25 to 34 years. In contrast, states with right to work policy witnessed a migration rate of about 3% for young adults during the same period (Semmense, 2011). Forced unionism is a violation of people rights that deny them the freedom to choose whether to join labor union or not. In addition, deducting money from employee compensation without their consent denies such workers the right to determine and monitor how the union officials use their money. There is a stark contrast in the level of economic growth between forced union states and those with right to work labor laws. According to Semmense (2011) the average real all industry gross domestic product (GDP) of all the 22 states with right to work policy grew by about 24% for period of ten years from 1999 to 2009. The growth rate was about 40% more than states with forced unionism. From personal income perspective, the real personal income in the right to work states grew by an average of about 24.3%, with people from forced unions states recording about 12% from 2000-2010 (Semmense, 2011). Conclusion In the recent past, forced union states have been receiving an increasing number of lawsuits because of violating employees’ constitutional right by collecting dues forcefully and compelling workers to join the labor unions. The disparity in economic growth between states with right to work and forced union labor laws indicate that the former offer attractive environment for business investment across the United States. This has resulted to some companies diversifying their operations from forced union states to those with right to work policy. This has subsequently resulted to increased immigration of young adults into regions where their constitutional rights at work are respected. This trend indicates that the future of forced unionism in the United States is not certain. However, there are concerns that right to work labor laws would promote exploitation of employees by their employers in the workplace, leading to poor working conditions and compensation because of weak workers representation. References Article 20. New York State Employment Relations Act. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://www.labor.ny.gov/erb/pdf/Article%2020%20_2_.pdf Dannin, E. (2008). Not a Limited, Confined, or Private Matter: Who is an Employee under the National Labor Relations Act? Retrieved August 5, 2011, from www.employmentpolicy.org/files/field-content-file/pdf/Mike Lillich/NYNY_LAJ_01-08.pdf Decker, K., & Covington, R. (2002). Employment Law in a Nutshell. New York: West Group Publishers. FindLaw (2011). New York Right to Work Laws. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/right-to-work/new-york/ NRTW (National Rights to Work) (2011). Rights to Work States: Texas. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://www.nrtw.org/c/txrtwlaw.htm Semmense, P. (2011). The Right to Work: A Fundamental Freedom. Retrieved August 4, 2011 from http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/right-work-fundamental-freedom-0715201 Read More