Brendan Darraugh

07/03/17

Professor Jamie Nelson

Poli 1100

In the United States, there has been a longstanding battle between the representatives of Big

Labor and Big Business. It is common knowledge that, before such a thing became distasteful in the

modern lens, the disputes between labor and management often came to violence: consider the nine

dead steelworkers during the Homestead strike or the hundred dead coal miners striking on Blair

Mountain. These disputes, then, are not simple arguments with little at stake; these are arguments that,

to both sides, define what being alive, being free, and being American truly are. Today, one of the most

hotly-contested and well-funded wars being fought for the rights of workers take the form of the debate

between the very misleadingly-named right-to-work laws. This debate seems as though anyone who

is against the law is clearly against the American worker. That duplicity is the intentioned effect of Big

Business and their allies to turn the uniformed against the unions that protect their rights, their pockets,

and, literally, their lives. Unfortunately, this effect weakens unions in the country, and greatly

diminishes the ability of the union to bargain for the rights of the workers by taking away the

requirement that those who benefit form unions must pay unions. Most states have these right to

work laws, with some having them codified in their very constitution. It is now the onus of the

American Federal government to reverse course and intervene on behalf of the American worker and

the once-powerful unions that protect those workers from the same interests that, less than one hundred

years ago, have killed American workers for demanding justice.

Right-to-Work (RTW) laws are ostensibly in place to affirm the right of every American to

work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union (NRTWF, Frequently Asked

Questions). This is according to the National Right to Work Committee, an organization with a vested

and well-funded interest in undermining the unions in the United States. Further, the NRTW claims
through its site, that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor

union (ibid). It is not suggested elsewhere that an individual has rights on their website.

The politically-unaffiliated website workplacefairness.org gives a different context for the

concept: In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed which prohibited arrangements where employers

agree to hire only unionized workers. The act allows for union shops, which are arrangements in the

workplace that require employees to join a particular union within a certain time-frame after they are

hired. However, Taft Hartley[sic] created an exception to the union shops rule that allows for

individual states to pass laws prohibiting union shops. (Midwest New Media) That exemption has

been levied by more than half of the states to create what they deceptively call right to work laws.

To take it further, the AFL-CIO says what it believes is the aim for those laws on its website:

The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the

system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form

unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. (Right to Work)

To define the issue clearly: Right to Work requires unions to represent all workers in their industry, but

does not require the worker to pay dues to the union. In other words, if a Utah teacher were to be fired

illegally, that teacher could go to the Utah American Federation of Teachers (an organization currently

made up of the president, his son, the secretary, and the office manager) and demand that the UAFT sue

the teacher's employer. Legally, the UAFT is required to defend that teacher. At the same time, that

teacher is not required to pay. In effect, this means that everyone is entitled to the good work a union

does, but no one is required to support the union. RTW is a de-clawing of the unions, and any argument

otherwise is necessarily perfidious and misleading.

Big business, by way of the National Right To Work (NRTW) Committee, says that right to

work is an issue of individual freedom, whereas the AFL-CIO says that big business is fixing the game

against the interests of the unions, and, by extension, the workers themselves. These are conflicting and

totally opposite points of view, yet both websites link to data that supports their claims. The NRTW
says that states with right-to-work laws have higher purchasing power, a better standard of living, and

that unemployment, job growth, and work stoppages are better in those states, to boot (NRTWF

Frequently Asked Questions). The AFL-CIO says that wages are lower, poverty is higher, and fewer

people receive health benefits on an infographic on their site. They also claim that workplace deaths are

higher by half in RTW states (Right to Work, AFL-CIO). Neither side provides sources for their

claims. The NRTW's claims are links to a different page on their site that gives the relevant state

statute, but no statistics are provided. The AFL-CIO's infographic has no sources linked (or pretended

to be linked).

A report by James Sherk, on the Heritage Foundation website, makes several claims similar to

the claims made by the NRTW. The article includes the artful spinning of the castrations of unions by

saying things like right to work makes unions work to earn support, and then somehow says that

unions both voluntarily support non-members and spend little on representational activities.

(Sherk) His statistics are slightly flawed, as well, when he says that workers have the same of higher

buying power, in the same article. That will be discussed later. However, an egregious claim made by

the article quotes, to no surprise of the author of this essay, a survey done by NRTW saying that

Americans overwhelmingly support right to work laws (Sherk). This survey was completed in 2010,

and asks current members of unions. The relevant question to this point is number 47. The survey asks,

italics added for emphasis, Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat

disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: Workers should have the right to decide

whether to join a union. They should never be forced or coerced to join or pay dues to a union as a

condition of employment. (NRTWC, Survey) This is the data point where Sherk suggests that 80% of

Americans are in favor of RTW laws. It is no coincidence that the italicized portion above is exactly

how the NRTW defines right-to-work. This is nothing short of a lie, and deceptive as large corporations

tend to be when accused of wrong-doing. It is also disingenuous to say that 80% of Americans are in

favor of RTW work, when it is evident the question was asking whether workers should be forced to
join a union. It is already illegal to be forced to join a union, and Right to Work just prevents unions

from asking for dues when the union must provide services regardless.

The Economic Policy Institute (unaffiliated politically, abbreviated EPI) has historically

provided research to inform, predictably, economic policy. The very first section of the paper rejects

Sherk's claims that workers have higher buying power in RTW, stating that Sherk was including

idiosyncrasies in his study. In doing so, he included variables that are not relevant and excluded

variables that are (Gould, Kimball). The study by the EPI claims definitively that RTW states have

lower wages and purchasing power by 3.8 and 4.6 percent respectively; this translates to a dollar value

of, on average, almost $1,500 for the mean worker lost yearly (ibid). The rest of the EPI study spends

more than one thousand words debunking the methodology of Sherk's own idiosyncratic analysis.

The interests in this fight are very heavily entrenched, and pro-RTW forces are gaining ground

at a pace not seen since the late 40s. Two states alone have adopted RTW laws since January of 2017,

making 7 states total since the year 2000 to adopt these laws, 5 states having passed RTW laws since

the year 2010. It is clear that the states, if left to their own devices, will continue to strip rights away

from the unions in increasing numbers.

There isn't an easy solution to this issue. The organizations that are involved both have

statistical proof of their support or opposition. It is possible that the anti-union interests have lied and

manipulated public opinion in such a way as to turn workers against their own interests. Anti-union,

pro-RTW organizations will ask workers, Do you want a right to work? Do you want to be coerced

into paying union dues? as if that is the effect of not having right-to-work laws, and then proclaim to

the world that workers don't want unions. The statistics they use are misleading. The intention of these

groups is to obfuscate and divide at the expense of the worker and the public good in general.

In any situation where the public good is being attacked to the benefit of the few and the

expense of the many, a government must step in to rectify those injustices being committed. Most states

have now passed RTW laws that lower wages and spending power and, at the same time, limit the
ability for unions to grow by requiring that all members of a unionized industry (even non-members)

benefit from that union while not contributing to that union. In a federal system, the idea of supremacy

gives the national government the power to override the states in an issue that involves both national

and state-level interests. In this case, the Federal government actually gives the states the power to

create the RTW laws. In that same law, one can see how the Federal government can prevent this

disastrous idea from taking root in American lives.

29 US code 164(b), (c)1 and (c)2, all determine that employers cannot require a worker to be

apart of a union. It does give states the power to make illegal the ability for unions to create agreements

with organizations wherein only union members can work. Because of Right to Work laws, non-union

workers receive the same benefits as a union worker without having to pay the dues. As it is illegal to

set up shops where unions can guarantee membership, this prevents any incentive for new workers to

join unions.

The Federal government, by legislation or court action, can nullify certain sections of 29 US

code 164 to make right-to-work laws more genuine. As it stands now, the unions exist, but in a weak

form, as is allowed by that US code. It should be amended so that unions are outright illegal in the

states with RTW (to at least make the intention of the legislature of that state clear) or to abolish the

ability to make union shops illegal. In the current form of the law, unions will continue to become

weaker as big corporations move jobs overseas and then point the finger at unions, who demand such

awful, unnecessary things as weekends, a living wage, health care, and a safe working environment.

If the progression continues, states like California, Washington, and Colorado, with very strong

unions, wages, and workers' rights, will become even more marginalized as regular workers will be

lead to believe those states coerce people into paying union dues. The federal government has the

authority and the responsibility to change the way the law is worded so that workers can no longer be

deceived into thinking that unions are out to strip their rights.
 Works Cited

Gould, Elise, and Will Kimball. "Right-to-Work States Still Have Lower Wages." Economic Policy
Institute. N.p., 22 Apr. 2015. Web. 03 July 2017.
Midwest New Media, LLC - Http://www.midwestnewmedia.com - (513) 742-9150. "Workplace
Fairness." Right to Work Laws. //www.workplacefairness.org, n.d. Web. 03 July 2017.
NRTWC. Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 July 2017.
<http://www.nrtwc.org/FactSheets/2010NationalRightToWorkLuntzUnionMemberSurvey.pdf>.
"NRTWF Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions." National Right to Work Foundation. N.p., n.d.
Web. 03 July 2017.
Right to Work AFL-CIO. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 July 2017.
Sherk, James. "Right-to-Work Laws: Myth vs. Fact." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 12 Dec. 2014.
Web. 03 July 2017.
"29 U.S. Code 164 - Construction of Provisions." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 03
July 2017.