Right to Work State - Research Paper Example

Right to Work State Right to Work state refers to a state in the United States that has enacted laws preventing a worker from joining any workers union or labor union. Such states maintain that a worker should not join any workers union as a condition of the employment or retaining a job. The Right to Work laws secures for employees the right of employees to make a decision to join any union or pay money to unions (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 1).Those states that have not yet passed this law are Non-Right to Work States. Such states allow a worker to be members of a trade union that represents them for collective bargaining. The law allows employees in Non-Right to Work states to become members of the union and has a duty to pay the membership fee to the union. So far, there are twenty-three Right to Work states in the United States. These states include Alabama, Florida, Wyoming, Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Louisiana, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Arkansas, North Dakota and Indiana (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 1). Most of the US states became Right to Work states after the Congress intervened through Taft-Harley act and allowed states to have an option (Eisner 24). The practice became an official policy in the United States and has continued since then. Different states have made changes in their state laws to implement the act thus becoming Right to Work states. The act left the decision to become a Right to Work state at the discretion of the state. Alabama declared her Right to Work policy in the year 1943. Among some of the fundamental areas that the legislation sought to address were issues of voluntary decision by all individuals. She asserted that as a state, she had a duty to protect all the workers, both men and women working within the state's jurisdiction. Some of the core provisions in her declaration were that the state should protect and play a part in helping the employer and the employee achieves a marvellous work relationship. Arizona on her part had enacted the law as early as 1946 and later reviewed it 37 years later to include other provisions. One can find this provision in article 25 of Arizona laws. Arkansas State made the Right to Work an official public policy in 947 as an amendment following act that Congress had passed. Her provision also sought to make it clear that no employer should fire an employee from job on the basis that the person has withdrawn from a union. Florida responded to workers affairs by declaring that she will consider regulating all labor union as a state policy. Florida based her arguments on the fact that labor unions were affecting the economic conditions of the county and that the state’ intervention was a duty to protect the interests of the majority (Mishel 23). Florida enacted that regulation as early as 1943 and later amended it in 1947. The law also provides for penalties for not abiding by the provision. Such penalties include offenders receiving punishment categorized under misdemeanor of the second degree. Other states enacted the Right to Work as a law as follow: Georgia in 1947, Idaho in 1985, Iowa in 1974, Kansas in 1958, Louisiana in 1976, Mississippi in 1960, Nebraska in1946, Nevada in 1952, and North Carolina in 1947. The rest of the states such as North Dakota became Right to Work state in 1948, Oklahoma in 2001, South Carolina in 1954, South Dakota in 1947, 1Tennessee in 1947, Texas in 1993, Utah in 1955, Virginia in 1947 and Wyoming in 1963 (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 1). The history of Right to Work state is, therefore, on in which is both controversial and engrossing given the developments that preceded the passing of the Taft-Harley act. Before the act, employers and employees were under a legal obligation to under the National Labor Relations Act. The act required that all employees be in registered union and that the employers also to be in a registered union for employers. Such were the conditions of employment in the United Stated under the National Labor Relations Act. The passing of the Taft-Harley Act made such previous provisions illegal (Eisner 44). No employer was under any obligation by law to subscribe to a union within a certain period anymore. Under the open shop rule, no one was supposed to force or compel any employee to pay dues to any labor union or force an employee to join such unions. In finer details, the act gave an employee the sole decision to accept membership in a union or decline any union. The act provided that employers should not fire an employee on the basis that the employee has chosen to be a member of a union out of his free will. After the passing of the act by the Congress, many states have reacted to comply with the legislation by choosing to operate as Right to Work states or as non-Right to Work states. The bottom line is that in both scenarios the issue of compelling workers to be members of a union no longer applies. At the height of adoption, many states in the US enacted laws to become Right to Work states due to various historical and political influences (Kalenkoski and Donald 24). States responded differently to the Taft-Harley Act. Earlier before this act, President Roosevelt had set the stage in 1944 when he was delivering a message to the congress. This message was a brief on the state of the union. Roosevelt believed that the society should consider it its obligation to make sure that everyone has a job that was well paying. This set stage for later debates. With such ideas on the ground, Harry Truman was to later another approach that did not put him in good books with the Congress as far as the Right to Work state was concerned. While Harry Truman understood the Taft-Harley bill as an attempt to curtail on some freedoms of the citizens by being too much regulative. Truman believed that the bill was in direct conflict with democratic belief of America as a nation and by extension interference with the freedom of speech. Senator Robert Taft who had sponsored the bill had a different view in mind. His focus was on the economic position of the US in the perod after the second world war era. A notable characteristic of the post war period was the rise in labor movements. Such a rise in labor activities gave rise to strikes by workers. Observers have noted that the response was to shield the US from undergoing radical industrial actions (Eisner 51). During this time, the country was also on the onset of cold diplomatic relations with the Moscow and any internal unrest would not be the best option (Arthur and Stephen 19). In essence, Robert Taft Act served to regulate and scrutinize any involvement of unions. The act also usurped powers of the labor unions and transferred them to the states. An attempt to block the bill by veto powers failed owing to full resistance of the Congress on the matter. The State of the Union appeared to be one in which all stakeholders desired to see that things were under control in the period after WW2. If there was anything that was going to disrupt plans by states to uplift their economies then it would be the labor issues (Mishel 21). Losing man several person-hours during the few-witnessed strikes was already an experience that the authorities knew would not impact positively on the economy. Nonetheless, the challenge was how the Congress was going to achieve that milestone without infringing on the rights of the people. The Taft-Harley act appeared as though it had double succeeded in killing two birds with one stone. It provided for the state, the employer and the employee. While employers and employees found the freedom to choose to belong to the union or not, the state also retained the power to ensure that it passed regulations that protected her unique interests within the provisions of the law. With this provision, states have enacted laws to become Right to Work states or remained as non-Right to Work states for various reasons (Kalenkoski and Donald 19). Nevada for instance made certain provisions with regard to this Right to Work act. Its law categorically states it does not recognize any event in which one cannot acquire employment on the basis that the person is not in any union as lawful. It goes on to state that any attempt by employees to compel the employer to provide certain terms of employment, advanced through strike, shall be treated as null and void in the spirit of the Taft-Harley act of Right to Work state. Many other states that have enacted the Right to Work act also have their various provisions. From its conception up to now, the US Congress has been vigil about this provision. However, there are records of futile attempts during the presidency of Jim Carter and Bill Clinton to redefine this provision. It appears that the State of the Union as it is, is that many people are still satisfied with provisions of the Taft-Harley act. Controversial as in may have been, it appears that has seen some sanity in the industrial sector and labor relations. One of the positive aspects about it is that it does not compel any state to adopt the right to work. The economic situation and specialization in each state is unique and remain a decision of the internal leadership. Some states have registered trends of them enacting and repealing the enactment as suits the prevailing political forces and issues at hand. Heated debates in support for the Right to Work state and in opposition to Right to Work state also exist. Such are view from different stakeholders and analysts of political and economic forces (Mishel 37). Each side appears to have remarkably convincing reasons for their beliefs in the matter. Opponents of Right to Work state claim that the amount of wages paid in states that are non-Right to Work state are relatively higher than wages that paid in Right to Work state. By comparing Pennsylvania and Arkansas, research done by the Corporation for Enterprise Development found that median wages in Pennsylvania, which is a non-Right to Work state, were higher than Arkansas by close to one hundred and fifty dollars (Corporation for Enterprise Development 1). In terms of percentage, the research also found out that such median earning in Pennsylvania were up to fourteen per cent higher than average median earnings for Right to Work states. Similarly, opponents of Right to Work state also argue that the rates of poverty are also considerably high in Right to Work states in comparison to Pennsylvania. An analysis reveals that child poverty rates in Pennsylvania was below 20% while that of Right to Work state was extraordinarily close to 30%. Opponents of Right to Work states highlight that the extent to which labor laws protect employees will reflect in the lifestyle of the employees. Poverty index, they say, is an indication of how much labor laws are effective in a country. They, therefore, maintain that Right to Work states do not consider the plight of its workers as much as those states that have not enacted legislation to operate as Right to Work states (Corporation for Enterprise Development 1). With regard to health, opponents of Right to Work states also point out that worker in Right to Work states are more likely to be killed on the job than worker in non-Right to Work states. They base their arguments on the evidence published by the Corporation for Enterprise Development. This research body found out through comparative analysis by using Pennsylvania as an example that the rates of work injuries that results in death were higher by 1.4% in Right to Work states than in Pennsylvania. The research went further to point out that even the average maximum benefit that one receives because of injury while at work is considerably higher in non-Right to Work states than in Right to Work states. The difference is up to over twenty percent. Such arguments propounded by opponents of Right to Work states probably suggest labor unions have bargaining powers, which they use to negotiate for better terms of employment. Opponents of Right to Work states also argue that such states do not offer unemployment benefits at the same rates as those states that have not enacted Right to Work. They remark that Right to Work states have policies that do consider to the social welfare of the citizens as much as those policies that one can expect to find in non-Right to Work states. For this reason, they believe that Right to Work states should actually repeal their enactments and operate as no n-Right to Work state (Eisner 79). In addition to this, they also claim that the probability of one not getting an insurance cover was also exceptionally high in Right to Work states. They observe that under the current conditions of economic disparities, it becomes extremely hard for someone without an insurance cover to manage his affairs. Health insurance, they say, has become a fundamental necessity so that one is able to meet medical expenses with ease. Other factors that have made some people to hold contrary opinion are issues to do with pension schemes and education. Critics of Right to Work states claim that such states are not able to offer such social benefits and services. Proponents of Right to Work states have various arguments to offer in defense of such direction of leadership. At its conception, Senator Taft implied that passing such a bill that would help many states rise or develop economically in a regulated environment. Supporters of Right to Work state assert that such policy has enabled a smooth run in commercial activities of states. They believe that it is in such kind of environments that business activities flourish and a state prospers. They cite all the positive developments that Right to Work states have achieved and their contribution to the overall rise of America’s position in the global market ((Eisner 97). Moreover, they contend that Right to Work states have enacted such laws to protect both the employer and employee from exploiting each other. They believe that Right to Work states serve interests of citizens much better that non-Right to Work states. Those proponents of Right to Work states justify their stand in different ways. They affirm their stand by stating that having the limits within which parties to any employment arrangement should conduct themselves serves to make contracts simple and cheap. Furthermore, such proponents claim that a Right to Work state offers an employer the opportunity to select qualified and competent employee while the employee also gets a chance to decide his own representation. They also add that Right to Work states protect the employee from spending significantly on unions for membership. The state assumes the role of the union and protects an employee’s rights without having to ask anything from the employee. Similarly, the employer finds the management of the business a lot easier especially that there will be no more external interferences. The employers are also able to control the work force within the provisions of the law without fear of disciplinary measures set out by labor laws (Kalenkoski and Donald 36). In short, one can see that Right to Work states have both their negative sides and positive sides. There are instances when doing something in a Right to Work state appears attractive especially the employers. On the other hand, the fact that employees no longer pay fees to unions and the fact that belonging or not belonging to a union is the sole decision of an employee is also an attractive feature of Right to Work states. What I think about Right to Work state is that it is a noble idea if states play their roles effectively. That would imply that the state machinery must act as a watchdog to protect employees from potential exploitation during work. Each state should make sure that there are favorable working conditions through policy development so that employers do not view the state as a form of interference. The state should not portray itself as slow to respond to issues affecting proper working relationships. As pertains to concerns about social benefits being comparatively lower in Right to Work states, I think the state can respond to that by constantly reviewing its policy on certain provisions after a given fixed period. This will make sure that state policies remain relevant with the changing times. Works Cited Arthur, Lager and Stephen, Moore. The (Tax) War Between the States. Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2007. Corporation for Enterprise Development. The Truth about Right to Work for Less. Comparison of Pennsylvania and “Right to Work”: States Shows that So-Called “Right to Work” Law is Wrong for Working Families. 2009. Eisner, Marc. The American Political Economy: Institutional Evolution of Market and State. New York: Routledge, 2010. Kalenkoski, Charlene and Donald, Lacombe. .Right-to-Work Laws and Manufacturing Employment: The Importance of Spatial Dependence. Southern Economic Journal 73: 402-418. 2006. Mishel, Lawrence. 2001. The Wage Penalty of Right-to- Laws. Economic Policy Institute Working Paper.2001. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Employees in Right to Work States Retrieved from http://www.nrtw.org/d/rtwempl.htm, 2010. Read More