Welcome to the first of many posts I am calling the right to work series. I have been in the skilled trades (as opposed to management, office, white collar – whatever you wish to call it) for 20 years now and I confess my first few in I didn’t know anything about the subject. All I knew was I wanted to work and make a name for myself. I’ve since done this and while I cannot recall the first time I heard the term ‘right to work,’ I do have many memories of discussions with uneducated people (in the office and in the field) concerning it. 

Since I like to write, claim this is a website from a skilled trades perspective, and recognize some haven’t navigated through the weeds concerning right to work, I thought why not start a series on it. I say a series because, it is impossible to detail all of the nuances concerning such a polarizing topic. Yet this is what you find on the internet today: scores of websites with very little information, coupled with low word count and full of platitudes. What’s needed is a thorough expose into the many facets and claims concerning right to work. For example, I want to look into the economic strengths of states where right to work is the law of the land and where it is not. I want to compare income inequality in the residents of those in right to work and those not in right to work. I also want to delve into the safety records of those states which cling to right to work opposite those who do not. 

               

                                                  Let’s see who is doing the heavy lifting here.

This is just for starters. For now, allow me to segue into my first article on this polarizing issue.

What is Right to Work?

*NOTE: This is part 1 of a mini series in the topic of right to work.*

Have you ever heard of “right to work?” It’s hard to believe you haven’t if you’re reading this website but hey, stranger things have happened before. No worry, allow me the opportunity to explain it on paper from a skilled trades perspective that is thorough – something which is, I admit, rare. It’s no secret I am pro skilled trades; anyone who has read anything I’ve written can discover this. Given that though, I will give the facts as they are, letting the chips fall where they may. After all, statistical data, facts, and studies fare better than the typical response of right to work – in defense of or attack against. As the saying goes, “just the facts.” Let’s see where those facts take us, shall we?

Let’s start with defining right to work. Because of the divisive nature of this topic, I’ll choose two definitions: one from those who advocate right to work is good and one from those who oppose it. First up is from those who say right to work is a good thing.

Defining right to work

The National Right to Work Committee defines right to work as “the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–“union shop,” “closed shop,” or “agency shop” –is a contradiction of the Right To Work principle and the fundamental human right of freedom that the principle represents.” Essentially, they are affirming an individuals ability to work – which is inherit in our human nature – and, as they state, not “be compelled to belong to a union.” To many, this seems as like common sense.

Now let’s hear from it’s detractors. I’ve chosen to use the definition the AFL – CIO has, pitting those who represent labor against those who oppose them. They define right to work as “the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union.”

This seems like a firm foundation which to build on. We’ve only scratched the surface, however, on some of the contentious issues which present themselves. Let’s look now at some of the other hot button discussion points. For this first part in the right to work series, we will look at two distinct points: compulsory representation and so called “free – riders.” They will suffice for the meat of this article.

Compulsory Representation 

Let’s dive head first into the chief complaint from organized labor: compulsory representation. Organized labor claims they are forced to represent non dues paying persons. Is this true? I took to the internet, canvasing websites for information pertinent to our discussion. Below is but a sample of what I found.

The AFL – CIO, the chief organized labor proponent, adds after defining right to work above, this caveat to their website: “The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union.” I researched this last claim and the fruits of this research makes up the next few paragraphs.

Nolo, an employment rights website, had this to say about it: “Workers have the right, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to refuse to join a union. However, some collective bargaining agreements — the contracts between the employer and the union — require a company to employ only union workers to do certain jobs. One major reason unions want these contracts is to share the burden of the union’s work. The union is required to represent everyone in the bargaining unit, regardless of their union membership. Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called “free riders,” who reap the windfall of the union’s work but don’t pay the price” (emphasis mine).

Not satisfied with merely one source, though, I delved deeper and present more information for your consumption.

Justia, another labor employment law firm website, writes that, “a union is an exclusive collective bargaining agent, which means that it must fairly represent all of the workers in the bargaining unit, including those who have decided not to be members or pay dues. People who oppose “right to work” laws do so because they believe that right to work laws allow employees to be free riders. This means that they benefit from collective bargaining but do not pay for the work” (emphasis mine). Next up is this nugget from them a little later on the page: “Under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), an employer and a union are permitted to sign a union security agreement that does not mandate that a worker belong to a union but does make getting and keeping a job contingent on the worker making agency fee payments to the union.”

Insidesources.com writes, “the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank, released a report highlighting how members-only unions can potentially solve problems for both sides in the case. Members-only unions aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers who don’t pay dues – though unions lose a huge benefit known as exclusive bargaining rights” (emphasis mine).

The report referenced above, would not present “a report highlighting how members – only unions can potentially solve problems for both sides in the case” without the fact that unions are made to represent non – union members by law. Drawing from the that last statement and phrase “exclusive bargaining rights,” let’s look at an opposing point of view.

An opposing view

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation quips on their ‘in three minutes’ page that, “because they enjoy the special privilege of exclusive representation, unions have a legal duty to represent fairly all employees in their bargaining units. Unions are legally required to represent nonmember employees…” The part I find interesting is not their view point; I certainly would think a National Right to Work advocate would have such a viewpoint. No; it is their statement that unions “enjoy the special privilege of exclusion representation.” Let’s pull on this thread for a moment.

There is a sizable excerpt from Erin Shannon from the washingtonpolicy.org website who writes, “federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions can represent only their dues-paying members under a “members-only” contract.  The benefits secured under these contracts apply only to dues-paying members.  As noted by the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board William Gould, “the law now permits ‘members-only’ bargaining for employees. 

Unions are only required to represent non-union workers if union executives choose to take on exclusive bargaining representation.  Exclusive bargaining representation gives unions a monopoly, because it specifies that only one union may organize and represent employees in a unit.  Employees may not represent themselves when negotiating with their employer, nor may any other union compete for membership.

This monopoly bargaining option means a union has decided to represent and negotiate on behalf of all employees in a company, regardless of whether every employee wants that representation. It also eliminates competition from other unions seeking to represent the same workers.

However, if unions opt for exclusive representation, the law then requires them to negotiate equally for all workers.  That is, as the exclusive representative, the union cannot negotiate a lower wage that discriminates against non-members.

If a union decides against exclusive monopoly bargaining, it is not required to represent non-members.  In that case only the members with a signed contract are required to pay dues and the union negotiates only for those members.  In practice unions almost always seek exclusive representation status, since it gives them a monopoly position in the workplace.”

The full article can be found here. 

What’s the truth

I admit freely this is a long excerpt; I wanted to include her position with much of it’s meat lest I am accused of taking something out of context. All seems to be satisfactory; after all, why wouldn’t unions merely ascribe for ‘members-only’ unions like former NLRB chairman William Gould mentions? The simple but expedient reason is mere semantics – and one those who advocate for right to work continually espouse. 

You see, the author is banking on your lack of knowledge of how unions work along with her semantic argument of “exclusive bargaining rights.” How so? Unions derive power from the power of those it represents; or if you prefer, the sheer power of numbers. The more people a union represents, the stronger its collective power will be and the better benefits it can negotiate for its members. This is not hard to fathom; after all, organizations like the AARP draw their power from the collective pool of senior citizens whom they represent. You diminish the number of those you represent and you diminish the power you possess. 

This is where Erin Shannon derives her strength – from the argument of “members only” bargaining units as opposed to “exclusive bargaining rights.” The main problem with this argument (and is typically the main point brought up by those in the field) is that the collective strength is what generated the benefits “all” enjoy in the first place; that is, the benefits a few wish to enjoy with out paying for have been paid for by others willing to sacrifice. 

Additionally, she mentions unions have exclusive bargaining representation which create monopolies, preventing other unions seeking to represent some workers. Other unions are not going to seek to represent a dissenting employee – who doesn’t want to be in a union, anyway – using their resources when numbers are paramount. It’s worthy to note this article came out in 2016, indicating the option of “members – only” is a relatively new decision; or, if you prefer (and is likely more accurate), pitching “members – only” as the answer is a back door way of union busting. It’s attempt is to dismantle the power of a union and cover up the disdain for unions with misdirection and semantics. 

 

Getting down to the basics

The “exclusive bargaining” mentioned is the defacto of union contracts. Let’s set aside the misdirection she employs when she writes, “It also eliminates competition from other unions seeking to represent the same workers.” This is merely a smoke screen, attempting to deflect the conversation away from the erosion of union contracts and power by suggesting “members – only” contracts become the norm. While it may be true “members – only” contracts correct the problem of mandatory representation unions are compelled to do, it is certainly a back door way to union busting; of that there can be no doubt. That being said, the claim of compulsory representation made by many unions is, in fact, true.

Additionally, Rick Ungar writes a compelling article on Forbes, where he details that yes, compulsory representation is indeed the norm across the country and it’s intent is to weaken unions. Although from 2012, the article is a solid one and you can find here. 

Free Riders

After compulsory representation, the next claim made and the second major point I want to address is that of free riders. Is this claim true? That is, do workers who refuse to join a union reap the benefits without “paying their fair share?” Having to work side by side with someone who doesn’t “pay their fair share” but also reap the benefits is certainly a morale buster but is there any validity to it? Let’s examine this claim to see it’s truthfulness. 

Nolo had this to say: “Requiring everyone who gets the benefit of the contract to be a union member solves the problem of so-called “free riders,” who reap the windfall of the union’s work but don’t pay the price.” 

Justia seconds this sentiment with this: “People who oppose “right to work” laws do so because they believe that right to work laws allow employees to be free riders. This means that they benefit from collective bargaining but do not pay for the work.”  

Herald.net asked a pertinent question in their article found below:

If a worker pays no dues, why get union benefits?

Free Riders and benefits

Do free – riders exist? Yes, they absolutely do. Do free – riders get the benefits of the work of the union? Again, this is also true. Right to work advocates will argue “members – only” contracts are the solution. However, the “members – only” contract is only aimed at compulsory representation. Notably, they are silent on the benefits those who refuse to join a union get. We have already looked at this proposed solution and the back door way of union busting it constitutes. However, I was curious as to what right to work advocates say about the benefits free riders derive from collective bargaining agreements. Again, I went searching.

While perusing the internet I came across The Mercatus Center of George Mason University, who published an article, which can be found here. The author, Adam Millsap, writes, “According to standard economic theory, there are a few circumstances in which government intervention may be warranted, and the prevention of free riding is one of them. But in order for someone to be considered a free rider, they must receive a benefit without paying for it – and it’s not clear that union-negotiated labor agreements actually benefit all covered employees. More specifically, if some employees are harmed while others benefit, then no general free riding occurs.

Many of the changes in general workplace safety that unions have historically pushed for, and which benefit a large majority of workers today, have already been codified into law. So while free riding may have been an issue 80 years ago, today’s labor unions largely negotiate over pay, retirement benefits and job security. In these areas, it’s far less likely that the union’s preferred outcome will benefit all of the employees it covers. “

 

The fact he opens with this is telling. What’s more, it’s fairly easy to spot semantics when you are looking for it. Arguing that “it’s far less likely that the union’s preferred outcome will benefit all of the employees it covers” is mere play talk; he is simply pitting individuals against the entire membership – trying to interject a problem to deflect attention from the free – rider complaint.

Even more telling is Mr. Millsap’s article in Forbes, writing about “increased happiness in right to work states: “One is the potential income effect of “free-riding”. When workers don’t have to pay dues to be union members in right-to-work states, they can use the extra money to buy other things without impacting their union status.”

In the same article he notes, “Additionally, the idea of widespread free-riding is dubious since labor unions don’t benefit all union members equally. Younger, healthier, and less experienced workers are often harmed by union agreements that use experience as a basis for promotion or emphasize health and retirement benefits at the cost of higher wages. The recent United Auto Workers agreement with General Motors (GM), for example, kept employees’ share of health care costs at 3% as opposed to the 15% GM suggested. While this may be a win for older workers or those with children who consume a lot of health care, younger, childless workers may have preferred higher wages in exchange for high-deductible insurance plans with higher co-pays.”

Considering health care costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy, is it hard to imagine negotiators want to protect their members from the soaring health care costs? In one sense he is bringing up the same worthless point from above; namely, trying to interject the individual vs. the collective. This underscores his lack of understanding how unions work, too. In the other, however, he claims there isn’t “free – riding” and yet confirms it all the same. Hmm, you’ll forgive me if I believe him dubious in all this.

Another writer, Carl Campanile of the NYPost, blasted attempts at allowing unions to reduce the benefits free – riders get. It’s not hard to see where he stands on right to work and free riders when he writes, “for example, an opt-out worker who is brought up on disciplinary charges now has to pay for his or her own lawyer instead of using a union attorney without charge.” It is a rare thing indeed to find someone who so willingly admits their stance. Normally, semantics and empty platitudes rule the day. Here, however, he CLEARLY advocates for compulsory benefits on behalf of those who do not pay their fair share. By using resources on those who decline to join and pay their fair share, unions are weakened – which is a backdoor way of union busting. At least this author had the gall to write it when I have had very little luck finding others addressing this point.

A point often neglected

There is one more point I want to bring up that is often neglected in the overall conversation. As a whole, it’s beginning is the argument that free riders get something for nothing by not paying for their fair share. I’ve addressed this point above, but the point evolves further. You see, there are a lot of employees working for companies who do not have the benefits those under union negotiated contracts do. Why don’t the employees who do not want to join a union simply go and work for one of those other companies instead? That way, they will be surrounded by a larger percentage of those who share their anti – union philosophy? I trust you know the reason why by now: they want the benefits which come with a union negotiated contract and not pay for it. They want something for nothing – or, if you prefer, they want their cake and eat it too. A rising tide may lift all boats, but dissenters don’t want to put in the hard work associated with it. Instead, they would rather institute “compulsory free – riders” (I’m coining this – you read it here first). What they see as a free ride right to work advocates see as a martyr to further their cause.  

In continuing this thought, allow me to state another observation which is glaring but too often neglected. Often those who advocate for right to work and who seek to force unions and companies to allow a worker to remain without paying their fair share, are the same ones who decry when this principle is used on religious grounds. I see little difference between unions and companies being forced to allow a dissenting employee on the payroll and the cake shop being coerced by government to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding he objects to. If the dissenting employee, the one who wants to not pay his fair share, doesn’t want to be represented by a union then he should go get another job – and those who are turned away from a cake shop on religious grounds should simply go to another shop. In the former, we see right to work advocates seeking union erosion and the latter seeks religious liberty eradication. The two are, in many ways, the same but some would call me cynical for pointing out the advocates for the first are usually the most outspoken against the second. Compulsory free riding is the same as compulsory cake baking. 

Conclusion

Taking the above into consideration, it is fairly safe to assume right to work is not what advocates make it out to be. Right to work, as it has been popularly labeled for years now, is intentionally deceptive by nature and misleading in intent; it has seductively worked its way into the public domain through false campaigning and worthless platitudes. Unfortunately, many in the workplace today are duped because they do not research this topic on their own. Instead, they become mouthpieces for a point of view designed to lower the tide of all boats – translating into reduced/eliminated unions, lower wages, lower benefits, and lower rights for all.

In my next article on the subject, I will delve into statistical data that reinforces the economic impact that is right to work.

*NOTE: This is part 1 of a mini-series in the topic of right to work.*

 

Additional Links

Below are a list of some websites I visited in preparing this article, compiled for your convenience.

Anti – right to work websites

• AFL – CIO website is found here
• Americanprogressaction.org has an article here
• The Forbes article mentioned above can be found here
• thebalancesmb.com has an article here
• herald.net and their article is found here

Right to work advocate websites

• Erin Shannon’s article, found on washingtonpolicy.org is found here
• National Right To Work Legal Defence Foundation’s article is found here
• Adam Millsap’s article, located on The Mercatus Center of George Mason University, can be found here
• Insidesources.com’s article is found by clicking here
• The National Right to Work Committee and their article, which I used for their definition of right to work is located by clicking here
• Carl Campanile’s NYPost article is found here

Additional websites

• NOLO’s article is found here
• Justia, and their article is located here

UPDATE: 9/10/2022 Gallop has a poll out that reveals the U.S. approval rating for unions is the highest it has been since 1965 – a clear indication many believe the standard way the American Economy is structured doesn’t work for the overwhelming majority of Americans.