Right-to-Work Laws: Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life - Literature review Example

HRD 350 Major Project Introduction Right to Work “Right to work is a legal statute in the US that prohibits the union as well as the employees from entering into the agreement that requires employees to connect with the union and pay remuneration to them for getting jobs or keeping them secured in the job. In other words, the law forbids ‘union security agreements’, or else agreements among the employers and the labor unions that administrate the degree to which, the union of the entity requires employee’s membership, payment of the dues of unions, as well as the fees for the condition of employment before and after the employees are hired. Additionally, this legislation legalizes people to be employed at any place of work without being forced to join the trade union as a condition of their employment. Thus, the approach of ‘Right to work law’ governs the rights of the employees to join the union based on their choices regarding whether they wanted to join or provide financial supports to the union. Furthermore, the statute of ‘Right to work law’ does not provide guarantee of job to the people who seek employment but rather is regarded to the government regulation of the contractual agreement among the union and employers that prohibits the prospective employees to pay any fees to union (Mandyuk, 2014). Besides, it has been affirmed that ‘Right to work law’ plays an integral role in protecting the freedom of the workers in the employment terms, as in the absence of the legislation, unions compel the employees and workforce to purchase representation of union. In this regard, the union gathers dues and fees from the employees regardless of how badly or efficiently they treat them. Nevertheless, in the absence of such legislation, it can be affirmed that workers support politicized organizations structure. On the other hand, the legislation of ‘Right to work law’ promotes overall economic growth and encourages formation of new business and employment opportunities (Mandyuk, 2014). States under Right to Work Law As affirmed earlier, the ‘Right to work law’ provides guarantees that none of the employees will be compelled or forced as the prior condition of the employment to join or not to join and pay dues and fees to the labor union. Additionally, the provision of ‘right to work’ has been enforced in 25 US states under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. Wisconsin is the 25th state that has recently, during March 2015, accepted the provisions of ‘right to work’ (The National Right To Work Committee, 2015). The list of 25 states that significantly comes under the provision of ‘right to work’ are - Alabama, Kansas, Georgia, Iowa, Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Louisiana, North Carolina, Indiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Tennessee and Wyoming (National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc., 2015). Correspondingly, the mentioned 25 US states adopted the provision of ‘right to work’ at different scenarios, wherein Arkansas was among the few first states and Wisconsin among the last few of the US those have enforced the provision of ‘right to work’ within the years 1944 and 2015 respectively. The timeframe when these 25 states adopted the provision of ‘right to work state’ has been depicted below. Right To Work State Right To Work Date Arkansas November 07, 1944 Florida November 07, 1944 Arizona November 05, 1946 Nebraska December 11, 1946 Virginia January 12, 1947 Tennessee February 21, 1947 North Carolina March 18, 1947 Georgia March 27, 1947 Iowa April 28, 1947 South Dakota July 01, 1947 Texas September 05, 1947 North Dakota June 29, 1948 Nevada December 04, 1952 Alabama August 28, 1953 Mississippi February 24, 1954 South Carolina March 19, 1954 Utah May 10, 1955 Kansas November 04, 1958 Wyoming February 08, 1963 Louisiana July 09, 1976 Idaho January 31, 1985 Oklahoma September 02, 2001 Indiana February 01, 2012 Michigan Wisconsin March 3, 2013 Wisconsin March 9, 2015 Source: (The National Right to Work Committee, 2015) History of Right to Work State Prior to the incorporation of federal labor law of ‘right to work’, as discussed above, the empowerment of labor as well as the collective bargaining has been significantly relying over the states’ regulatory framework. During such period, the labor law varies from state to state and most of the states attempt adopting policies of open competition with minimal amount of governmental intervention in the operations. Apparently, during the year 1926, Railway Labor Act was passed, which is regarded as the first federal law that guarantees right of collective bargaining to the workers. On the other hand, 1932 Norris-LaGuardia Act forbids the federal courts to issue the commands during the time of labor dispute. Furthermore, the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not provide collective bargaining rights but governs the employer-union relations. Besides, this law was surpassed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which is generally known to be Wagner Act, being implemented during the year 1935 that governs the collective bargaining rights as well as the employer-union relations in the different private sector companies (Collins, 2014). NLRA recognizes that refusal of employers to form proper collective bargaining with the employees will lead to unrest and obstruct the working environment. In this context, in order to eradicate this issue, NLRA guarantees rights to the workers to bargain over their wages, working hour and other conditions. Furthermore, it also forms the special procedures in the election and certification of the unions and unfair labor practices for the employers that might discourage the employees from unionizing. Thus, NLRA, imposed by National Labor Relations Board becomes the federal agency. Nevertheless, in accordance to Wagner Act, a company may lawfully agree to be a ‘closed shop’ and the employees in the unionized workplaces, which must be the member of union, as the prior condition of employment. However, in the closed shop, the employee who has been as the member to the union and fails to pay the dues and fees to the union, which could possibly be laid-off from the employment even if they do not violate the provisions of the company (Collins, 2014). Correspondingly, during the year 1947, with effect from the presidential veto Taft-Hartley Act was implemented, which recognizes Labor Management Relations Act amended the previous NLRA provision. The provisions of Taft-Hartley Act include the various statements and provisions of NLRA. In accordance to the Wagner Act that focuses over the rights of the labor, the Taft-Hartley Act, on the other hand, addresses the provision that employers, employees as well as the labor unions are having equal rights in the process of negotiation. Moreover, the act states that no parties in the agreement have entitled the right that can put public health, safety, or interest at risk. On the other hand, the provision of Taft-Hartley Act also prohibits strikes and outlawed (i.e. closed shops) activities, which require the employee to be a union member prior to employ for the position. Furthermore, Taft-Hartley Act includes the provision of ‘right to work’, which affirms that individual states are likely to opt the ‘right to work law’, which will be prohibiting union agreements in labor contracts on the condition that law related to NLRA provisions have to be superseded (Collins, 2014). Arguments For and Against Right to Work State Based on the discussion of the legislation of ‘right to work state’, it can be affirmed that the states those had adopted the provision of ‘right to work’ the employers and unions have the option of agreeing the right of collective bargaining along with the ‘union security agreements’. However, the employees covered under the collective bargaining system, enjoy the choice to join union or pay the dues of the union. On the other hand, states those are not agreed to ‘right to work’ regime are subjected under the provision of NLRA, which signifies that union and employers can agree to collective bargaining and significantly require all the employees be covered under the contract has to pays the dues and fees within 30 days. Besides, the workforce covered under such agreement is regarded as union shop (Collins, 2014). Arguments in Favor of Right to Work State The provision of ‘right to work law’ plays an effective role to safeguard the interest of the workforce in the employment terms, as the previous regimes of the employment terms compel the employees and workforce to purchase representation of union. In this regard, Munk (1998) affirmed that ‘right to work’ provision allows better eradication of the unfairness persistent in the working environment, as in accordance to the provision of NLRA, employees need to join the union or compel to pay the fees of collective bargaining, as the key consideration of their employment contract. Correspondingly, another favorable justification that ‘right to work state’ will be a beneficial approach implies that the laws help to develop a positive business environment as the employers obtain flexibility in terms of hiring, ejection, as well as determination of wage structure for the employees. In addition, the states those adopted ‘right to work’ policy will allow new business to get attracted towards such environment and likely, the employment opportunity will increases in these areas within the short-term. Moreover, it can also be affirmed that employees working the ‘right to work state’ are provided with the provision of right to freedom, as it has been argued with the provision that in such state, the employees may or may not join the union, which is a compulsion in the forced unionism states. Besides, regardless of resigning from the union membership, employees will not have the fear of termination from the employment that is likely to be one of the major issues in forced unionism states. On the other hand, if the employees resign from the union, they are still perceived to be fully covered to avail the rights of collective bargaining, which is the term of negotiation of the agreement between an employer and a union. Apparently, any benefit that the employer is pursuant under the agreement of collective bargaining including wages, vacations, promotion, pension and insurance, are not likely to be affected with the resignation (Collins, 2014). With a similar concern, Vedder (2010) argued that laws related to the right to work apparently enhances the amount of recourse availability in the geographical area after its adaptation of the act, as people begin migrating in such places. Besides, the study highlighted that inhabitants, in search of the employment opportunity, move in extraordinary numbers over the right-to-work states where union were agreeable demand over the adoption of laws. Apparently, such scenario will provide the workers as well as the employers a greater level of flexibility, contributing to higher economic growth environment (Vedder, 2010). Argument in Favor of Right to Work State Madland et al. (2012) correspondingly affirmed that the provisions of ‘right to work’ does not allow some of the workers’ group to avail the advantage of free ride and obtain advantages from the union contract. Thus, they are incapable of availing the advantage of demanding wages enrichment and protection over the arbitrary policies, as they do not pay fee to the union associated with the negotiation of these matters. Besides, it has been affirmed that ‘right to work’ policy does not have any significant impact over the employment scenario. For instance, Oklahoma which has adapted the regime of ‘right to work’ during the year 2001, reflected a fall in the manufacturing jobs by one third. Apparently, it was also highlighted that the law had relatively lower the pay as well as the benefits to unionized employees by weakening the union. In this regard, it can be affirmed that the union has a significant impact over the wages and other benefits, as their higher bargaining power. On the other hand, it has been argued that ‘right-to-work’ laws will also hurt the safety of employees in the workplace, which can be justified with the example that occupational-fatality level in construction industry is hazardous in respect of the deaths, as it recognizes to have death rate of 34% higher in comparison to the state without law (Madland et al., 2012). Similarly, the study highlighted and argued against the law stating that increasing density of union will apparently have a positive impact on the workplace safety in the states without ‘right to work law’. As the 1% increase in the rate of unionization will lead 0.35% fall in the construction fatality level, while on the other hand, in ‘right to work’ states there was no impact visible over the density of safety ((Madland et al., 2012). Correspondingly, the another aspects those oppose the views of ‘right to work’ weakens the rights of middle class people, as the union plays an integral role in raising voice of employees against the market as well as the demography for any unjust action taking place. In this respect, the study of Madland et al. (2012) inferred that nine states including Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Oklahoma were recognized to have lower national income of middle class people, comparatively with the other states. Besides, Dinan (2011) affirms that ‘right to work’ also restricted the provision to create freedom of association, as it forbids them to agree the workers and employees to make agreeable contractual relationships, which is likely to develop the problem of free rider in the mind of the non-union employees, those who find the union indenture beneficial. Besides, in this respect, a report from Minnesota AFL-CIO (n.d.) affirmed that in aggregate, the ‘right to work’ state earns $5,538 per year lesser than in comparison to the state without such provision as well as the spending over the educational institutes is $2,671 lesser. Notably, it can be stated that laws to lower the wage and other significant benefits, which will apparently be threatened by lowering the availability of jobs and declining the consumers demand. Furthermore, the provision is regarded to create a negative impact over political democracy, as the unions play a key role in boosting political participation in the ordinary inhabitants and allow them to raise their voices against discrimination. However, the law weakens the union’s involvement, while there were fewer advocates over the pro-workers policies. In this regard, the study highlighted that for every 1% increase in the union density, the turnout rates of the voters increased by 0.2 to 0.25%, which reflected that increases in the unionization rates by 10% will likely increase the rate of citizens to vote, by 2.6 million to 3.2 million (Madland et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the study of Lafer & Allegretto (2011) affirmed that ‘right to work’ policy in Oklahoma fails to provide support in raising the rate of employment in manufacturing department, which was significantly increased prior to the adoption of the policy but constantly declined after the adaptation of the same. This could be better signified with the below depicted representation. Oklahoma Manufacturing Employment from 1990-2010 Source: (Lafer & Allegretto, 2011) Conclusion Based on the discussion it can be affirmed that the statute of ‘right to work’ is a regime that prohibits employees from joining and paying any fee or other form of payments to unions, as a prior consideration of employment. In the current scenario, 25 states of the US had significantly adopted the policy of ‘right to work’. Besides, different authors have made various arguments and legal representatives are far and against the provisions of ‘right to work’. Notably, the provision is regarded to create a positive working environment by allowing removal of unfairness with the employees, as in respect to previous contractual agreement, regardless of union membership to be beneficial for them, they had to join the union or were compelled to pay the fees of collective bargaining to union. On the other hand, findings obtained in this study also depicted that ‘right to work’ states recognize lower level of growth in income as well as other social activities comparatively to non ‘right to work’ states’. References Collins, B. (2014). Right to work laws: Legislative background and empirical research. Congressional Research Service, 1-14. Dinan, E. (2011). N.H. Rep. proposes right to work law. Retrieved from http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110114/NEWS/101140396/-1/NEWSMAP Lafer, G. & Allegretto, S. (2011). Does ‘right-to-work’ create jobs? Economic Policy Institute, 1-22. Mandyuk, I. (2014). What is the right-to-work? Retrieved from https://www.cusw.ca/web/political-action/right-to-work Munk, L R. G. (1998). Remove union security clauses. Retrieved from http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1395 Minnesota AFL-CIO. (n.d.). Right to work laws: Get the facts. Retrieved from http://www.mnaflcio.org/news/right-work-laws-get-facts Madland, D., Walter, K. & Eisenbrey, R. (2012). Right-to-work 101: Why these laws hurt our economy, our society, and our democracy. Center for American Progress Action Fund, 1-5. National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. (2015). Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.nrtw.org/b/rtw_faq.htm The National Right to Work Committee. (2015). State right to work timeline. Retrieved from http://nrtwc.org/facts-issues/state-right-to-work-timeline-2/ Vedder, R. (2010). Right-to-work laws: Liberty, prosperity, and quality of life. Cato Journal, 30(1), 171-180. Read More