History of Unions and Right-to-Work Laws

DECEMBER 17, 2013 10:36:50 PM

During the colonial and revolutionary period of the US, most Americans practiced agriculture. The early US also had a substantial
population of laborers, a group that included artisans, indentured servants and slaves. Many laborers resided in the major colonial cities
of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and at times these urban laborers organized against poor working conditions and low pay. The
population of laborers in the US increased during the Industrial Revolution, as many Americans, including women and children,
transitioned from agriculture to industrial jobs. Some unions existed by the start of the US Civil War in 1861, but by and large laborers
remained unorganized.

The late 19th century, however, witnessed an increase in union activity. Early unions like the National Labor Union and the Knights of
Labor emerged in the post-Civil War landscape but did not last long. On May 3, 1886, the Haymarket Affair turned public support against
organized labor. After Chicago police fired into a group of striking laborers, an anarchist threw a stick of dynamite at the police and the
explosion killed an officer. The incident did not spell doom for unions in America and Samuel Gompers helped the American Federation
of Labor establish itself as one of the nation’s largest labor unions.

Union activity in the US continued to increase, and in July 1935, unions received greater political protection when President Franklin
Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act. According to Roosevelt, the Act protected “the right of self-organization of
employees in industry for the purposes of collective bargaining.” It imposed a duty on employers to engage in collective bargaining with
unions, and imposed a duty on workers to pay those negotiating unions under union security agreements. By 1947, however, some
members of Congress proposed changes to the pro-union structure of the NLRA, and, over the veto of President Harry Truman, passed
the Taft-Hartley Act. That Act amended parts of the NLRA, such as subjecting labor unions to claims of unfair practices and only
allowing union shops in the absence of state law to the contrary.

Section 164 of the Taft-Hartley Act established the foundation for right-to-work laws by allowing states to prohibit union security
agreements, or compulsory union membership. Within a year of the Taft-Hartley Act’s passage, 12 states passed [PDF] right-to-work
laws. Several more followed suit throughout the 1950’s. As of December 2013, 24 states had enacted right-to-work laws. Michigan
became the most recent state to pass a right-to-work law in December 2012. Michigan’s law covers both public and private sector
employees. The law does not prohibit employees from becoming members of labor unions, and instead allows employees the right to
choose whether to refrain from union activity. The law creates a “right-to-work” by prohibiting union activity from being a required condition
of employment.

The right to work really means the right to work for less

Why business interests have spent 70+ years crusading for right-to-work laws.

Over the past several years, billionaires have donated millions to the right-wing Midwestern governors pushing for state right-to-work
laws, while at the same time bankrolling the current Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, which will determine whether public
employee unions can require dues from nonmembers to support union activities from which all employees benefit.
Their efforts are not the product of a post-Citizens United landscape, but rather part of a decades-long project. For more than 70 years,
supposedly nonpartisan groups, big businesses, wealthy donors and small firms have been devoting time and money to guarantee that
Americans would have the right to work — for less.
So-called right-to-work laws have always been sold as all-American protections of individual freedoms. But they are in fact dangerous,
confusing restrictions on Americans’ basic rights on the job. These statutes empower employers by undermining workers’ right to organize
and rolling back the gains — better wages, working conditions and hours — that unions fought to secure.
AD

Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act, commonly known as the Wagner Act, in 1935 to recognize employees’ right
to organize. If a majority of eligible employees joined a union, that local would have federal recognition, something that greatly aided
members’ ability to collectively bargain for fair contracts with managers. This legislation democratized factories, inspired industrial
workers to overwhelmingly support the president’s 1936 reelection bid and gave two generations of working-class Americans middle-class
lifestyles and the free time to actively participate in civil society, particularly through their unions.
Business groups, which have long supported management’s right to rule on the job and in politics, immediately set to work trying to
dismantle the Wagner Act. Initially some employers ignored or challenged the entire law. After the Supreme Court upheld the legislation
in 1937, small business owners and top executives across the country tried to undermine it through state “labor peace” or “employment
peace” acts, which limited labor rights and restricted union-shop clauses (which require all eligible employees to join the local) in the
name of tranquility and prosperity.
By 1944, businesses of all sizes hit on a new solution in their fight against the Wagner Act: pushing the first right-to-work referendums in
Florida, Arkansas and California.

Right-to-work laws undermined unions by outlawing seemingly obscure, often confusing contract clauses governing union negotiations.
U.S. labor law dictates that nonunion members are covered by the contract that members negotiated and are also represented by the
union during managerial disputes. But union negotiations require time and resources, which necessitate dues. “Union-shop” rules ensure
everyone who benefits from the union helps pay for it (rather than free-ride on the contributions from others as happens without such
membership provisos). Right-to-work laws effectively ban these rules, regardless of what management agrees to and what the majority of
a union wants.

Few lawmakers, even in Southern and Southwestern legislatures, considered passing these proposals in the 1940s and 1950s because their
constituents considered labor rights sacrosanct. Union members and their allies warned that the right to work really would just give
citizens the right to starve, because union-shop clauses were critical to stopping the free-riders who weakened their efforts.
Undaunted, right-to-work proponents shrewdly turned these bills into ballot initiatives. Local civic organizations and Chamber of
Commerce affiliates vastly outspent the labor movement on newspaper and radio ads warning that these propositions would free workers
from union bosses intent on keeping them from having the freedom to choose whether to be in a union or not. They had powerful allies:
American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Labor-Management
Foundation, DeMille Political Freedom Foundation and Christian American Association.

These conservative groups, small-business owners and CEOs never advertised their involvement in those early referendums. They
understood how toxic that might be. Many also remained hesitant to discuss their involvement with the National Right to Work
Committee, the purportedly nonpartisan organization that these moneyed interests created in 1955 to harness the resources of the many
organizations and businesses across the country fighting to pass right-to-work laws.
The ballot initiatives passed in Southern, Mountain West and Southwestern states. But voters rejected them in Midwestern, Northeastern
and Pacific Coast states. As such, NRTWC redirected its vast resources from the political arena to a hefty legal defense fund that shifted
the right-to-work battle into the courts, where the billionaires behind the case’s rapid path to the Supreme Court have kept it.
These efforts have worked: The Supreme Court has extended the restriction on union shop rules to “agency shop” clauses, like the one at
issue in this case. (The plaintiff in the case, Mark Janus, is an Illinois employee and not a member of AFSCME but was required to pay
fees to the organization.) These stipulations require nonmembers to pay a percentage of union dues to cover their fair share of the union’s
legal responsibility of having to bargain and uphold a contract for every eligible employee. In the early 1960s, the justices ruled that such
clauses were illegal in states that had already passed right-to-work laws (even if those statutes did not expressly prohibit fair-share
arrangements). A decade later, the court allowed public employee unions to negotiate such protections in non-right-to-work states, which
is why the issue is again in front of the court.

Right-to-work laws and fair-share fee restrictions did a lot to undermine the larger struggle for a more democratic, equitable America.
Before the NRTWC moved this fight into the courts in the late 1950s, these laws only passed in the Southern and Western states infamous
for their voting restrictions. The 1965 Voting Rights Act in fact focused on many of those areas as needing special restrictions on how local
officials conducted elections.
Unsurprisingly, that right-to-work belt was also infamous for its low wages. Right-to-work membership restrictions made it difficult to
form unions, bargain with managers or even keep enough members to retain the federal recognition that had enabled so many blue-collar
Americans to exercise their power to collectively bargain for white-collar living standards and to actively participate in politics.
Midwestern states only started to join that impoverished archipelago in the 2010s. After almost 50 years of largely confining the right-to-
work fight to the courts, Republican legislators and governors, like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, in those heavily gerrymandered states
quickly passed these laws at the behest of billionaire donors. They didn’t dare put the issue before Rust Belt voters who still cherish their
rights on the job and have vigorously protested these restrictions. Then, to avoid confronting angry workers, they used redistricting and
new voting restrictions, including ID laws to shield themselves from vulnerability.
AD

With the 2018 midterm and 2020 presidential elections looming, Americans should keep in mind how much American business interests
have spent to guarantee the right to work for less and limit democracy on the job and on Election Day. Wages, working-conditions and
voter participation remain higher in non-right-to-work states.
But these days when Americans think about threats to democracy, they focus mostly on Russian interference in recent and coming
elections. That thinking misses that the homegrown threat may be more subtle, but no less grave. Long before the Supreme Court’s 2010
Citizens United decision spotlighted the issue by unleashing a flood of big business money in politics, wealthy citizens from all over the
country funded the right-to-work campaigns intended to undermine the unions that blue-collar Americans used to protect their rights on
the job, improve their living standards and participate in civic life.
That money has done much to influence politics at all levels, sowing a distrust in government among working- and middle-class Americans
and leaving this country’s institutions vulnerable to the very foreign threats that now dominate the news. But until these domestic threats
share the front page with those foreign ones, we won’t truly be able to safeguard our democracy. (THE WASHINGTON POST)

Dec 11, 2012, 02:37pm

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

(FORBES)

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have
something to do with the right to work.

They decidedly do not.

While—as we will see—the misnomer has nothing whatsoever to do with granting anyone a right to get work or protecting those who
have a job from losing it, this “misunderstanding-by-design” has not prevented the Michigan legislature from sending two bills to the
desk of Governor Rick Snyder.—legislation that, upon execution, will turn Michigan into the 24th state to adopt right-to-work laws.

Accordingly, this seems an appropriate moment to set the record straight on what these laws are, in actuality, intended to achieve.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an
agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union
members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.

Not true.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, did away with the “closed shop” era in
America during which an employee—who either resisted joining the union or lost his union membership as a result of failing to pay dues
or some other violation—was required to be dismissed by the employer as a result of the worker losing, or never accomplishing, union
member status.

But there was much more to this law.

The Taft-Hartley Act additionally required that employment agreements collectively bargained for to benefit union members would also
be required to inure to the complete benefit of non-member employees, even though these employees elect not to join the union.

Already knew all of that? Excellent.

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with
virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?
By way of example, if a non-member employee is fired for a reason that the employee believes to constitute a wrongful termination, the
union is obligated to represent the rights of that employee in the identical fashion as it would represent a union member improperly
terminated. So rock solid is this obligation that should the non-union member employee be displeased with the quality of the fight the
union has put forth on his or her behalf, that non-union member has the right to sue the union for failing to prosecute as good a defense
as would be expected by a wrongfully terminated union member.

Given the fact that Taft-Hartley was providing non-union members with most all the benefits of membership without having to join up,
the Republican controlled Congress that passed the law —a law specifically designed to curb union power in America— believed it would
be unfair for non-member workers to gain all these goodies at no charge while members were obligated to pay dues for the very same
services the union provided.

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to
pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-
member.

Which brings us to myth number 2….

Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being
forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to
pursue.

Again....not true.

Taft-Hartley clearly states, and a number of court cases have confirmed, that non-union members can be compelled to pay only that
portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and providing the service that
are given to union members. Indeed, the law specifically states that non-members cannot be required to pay for the union’s political
activities or for the costs incurred by the union resulting from organizing employees.

So, if workers (a) already have a legal right not to join a union at their workplace and can be required only to pay that portion of the
union dues that goes directly to the costs of the collective bargaining and other benefits of union protection to which they are entitled
even though they are not union members; and (b) bear no obligation whatsoever to pay for the political activities of the union, what do
these ‘right to work’ laws seek to do and where do they come from?

The Taft-Hartley Act, which was, in truth, the true ‘right to work’ law in that it permitted those who did not wish to join a union to still
hang onto their jobs, did more than simply create a situation where workers could not be barred from working in a union shop without
having to join up.

While even a Republican controlled Congress could recognize the inherent fairness of requiring non-member workers to contribute to
the unions in return for getting all the benefits of membership via the ‘agency fee’, the law managed to create a loophole that would
allow the states to do away with agency fees altogether—if that was their desire.

That loophole is what we now know as ‘right to work’ laws—laws that permit non-union member employees to continue to get all the
benefits of union representation and protection, as is still the requirement of federal law, without having to pay so much as a penny in
return for these benefits.

Thus, while some choose to call these legislative actions ‘right to work’, many prefer to refer to them as laws designed to provide a ‘right
to freeload’.

So, why would a state embark on what is such an obviously unfair scenario?

Says Will Collins of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, “The case for right-to-work has always rested on the
importance of defending worker freedom, but right-to-work laws also have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth."

The often-cited argument that right-to-work laws, somehow, defend worker freedom is an awfully tough case to make—as the only
apparent freedom provided workers via these laws is the freedom to get something for nothing.

And not everyone agrees that the laws actually do bring business into a state.

According to a report written by economists Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto reviewing the results of Oklahoma’s right-to-work laws,
and published by the Economic Policy Institute, right-to-work laws do not always work out quite so well.

“Rather than increasing job opportunities, the state saw companies relocate out of Oklahoma. In high-tech industries and those service
industries "dependent on consumer spending in the local economy" the laws appear to have actually damaged growth. At the end of the
decade, 50,000 fewer Oklahoma residents had jobs in manufacturing. Perhaps most damning, Lafer and Allegretto could find no
evidence that the legislation had a positive impact on employment rates.

"It will not bring new jobs in, but it will result in less wages and benefits for everybody including non-union workers," says Lafer.”

Still, there may be a credible argument to be made with regard to ‘right-to-work’ presenting greater opportunities for economic growth
in the states that adopt the laws as both sides of the argument are likely to agree that these laws have the effect of weakening unions—
and weakened unions tend to be good for business...or at least the owner of the business.

By giving non-union members a "free ride"—while preserving for them all the benefits of collective bargaining and union membership—
the likelihood that employees will chose not to become members of a union are greatly increased. After all, why pay union dues when
you can get all the benefits of representation for free? It would be like telling someone in need of a lawyer that they can elect to have
qualified representation handling their case at a rate of $200 an hour or they can choose to have that same lawyer handle their matter
for free.
What’s more, if the client feels the lawyer has failed to deliver her best work because she was doing it for no payment, that client can sue
for malpractice—even though the client paid nothing for the services provided.

The inevitable result of gaining fewer members, and less money through dues and agency fees to support union collective bargaining
activities, is the strengthening of the employer's hand in collective bargaining negotiations—a trend that obviously bodes well for
business profitability if less encouraging for workers who are likely to suffer lower wages as a result.

Forbes' Rick Ungar and Bill Baldwin discuss Right-To-Work law

(Continued on next page)

In another landmark study done by the Economic Policy Institute—a non-profit think tank which bills itself as non-partisan but, to be
fair, is considered by many conservatives to lean to the left as a result of union financial support—it was determined that right-to-work
laws result in lower wages, for both union and non-union workers alike, by an average $1500 per year as adjusted for cost of living in
each state.

These findings have been contradicted by studies offered by organizations aligned with right-to-work advocate groups.

And then there are the all-important political ramifications.

At a time when Citizens United has fully unleashed the power of corporations to add hundreds of millions to the campaign coffers of
candidates that, as we have recently seen, tend to be Republican, the American unions continue to be the largest contributor to
Democratic candidates. By creating laws that are guaranteed to put a strain on union treasuries, states can virtually assure that
Democratic candidates, at all levels, are likely to feel the pinch.

It should, therefore, surprise nobody that right-to-work legislation has never been passed into law by a state legislature controlled by
Democrats, signed into law by a Democratic governor or that support for these laws comes down squarely along partisan lines.

The upshot?

If you are anti-union, the path to right-to-work laws is certainly one you will wish to follow.

However, if you imagine that your support is the result of a righteous belief that American workers are, somehow, being denied choices
in the workplace and that this grievance requires redress, you are fooling yourself.

You can support these laws if you believe that lessening the collective bargaining power of workers will bring business to your state or
that lower paying jobs is, somehow, in the interest of the nation—despite almost two generations of declining growth in worker wages in
the face of skyrocketing executive compensation.

You can support these laws if you feel that it is appropriate, and in the best traditions of the nation, to win elections by denying
Democrats critical funding at the very time when the Supreme Court has dramatically boosted the ability of Republicans to add millions
to their campaign efforts.

However, if your concern is for fairness in the workplace, don't be fooled.

While you may argue that having a job is better than not having a job—no matter how low or unfair the wage paid for that job maybe—
right-to-work laws are not designed to do anything to improve the lot of the American worker. At best, they may result in a few low-
paying businesses moving into your state should your GOP controlled state government jump on the right-to-work bandwagon.

But, in the long run, it is a pretty reasonable bet that all working Americans will suffer as a result.
Right-to-Work: What it is and how it works
By ERIN SHANNON |

Key Findings
1. Studies show that states with right-to-work laws attract more new business than states without such laws and also typically
have a better business climate than non-right-to-work states.
2. Once cost of living is accounted for, workers in right-to-work states enjoy higher real, spendable income than workers in non-
right-to-work states.
3. Federal law does not require unions to represent non-members; unions are only required to represent every worker if they
choose to invoke federal law giving them “exclusive bargaining representation.”
4. Union membership has been declining nationally for three decades. Public support for labor unions appears to be fading.
5. Right-to-work laws do not ban unions or prevent them from serving the interests of their members. Rather, right-to-work laws
require unions to give workers a choice about financially supporting those efforts.
6. Recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn and Knox v. SEIU indicate the Court may be willing to overturn
a previous decision (Abood) that requires government employees to pay union dues or agency fees, even if they do not want
union representation. Such a ruling would likely lead to the same rights for private sector workers.
Introduction
The issue of right-to-work, the right of a person to hold a job without having to pay dues to a union, is steadily taking center stage
across the country as states strive to improve their ability to create jobs, promote economic development and attract new businesses.
Two states, Indiana and Michigan, recently enacted right-to-work laws, also called “workplace freedom” or “workplace choice,” with
more states introducing legislation and debating the issue every year. Currently 24 states have right-to-work laws.

In states with right-to-work laws, workers can choose not to join a union and not pay dues. States without right-to-work laws do not
allow workers that choice, instead requiring employees to pay union dues or “agency fees” as a condition of employment.

A right-to-work law does not prohibit employees from joining a labor union, nor does it prohibit them from paying union dues voluntarily.
Labor unions still operate in right-to-work states, but the law protects each person’s freedom of association by prohibiting the payment
of union dues from being a required condition of employment. The principle right-to-work laws seek to protect is that no one should be
forced to choose between paying money to a cause he or she might oppose and making a living.

Opponents says right-to-work laws give non-union members a “free ride” in the workplace, enabling them to benefit from union
representation and union-secured benefits without sharing in the cost of negotiating those benefits. They argue the “free riders”
ultimately result in more and more workers leaving the union, undermining the stability and financing of the union itself. For that reason
opponents often describe efforts to pass right-to-work laws as “union-busting.”

This study provides background on the history of right-to-work legislation and explores the impact right-to-work laws have had on
states.

Background
Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), known as The Wagner Act, in 1935 to regulate and protect the right of
workers to unionize and collectively bargain for wages and benefits. The law sanctioned collective bargaining agreements negotiated
between employers and labor unions that created “closed shops” and “union shops.” A closed shop requires employers to hire only
current union members. A union shop forces employers to require that anyone hired by the company join the approved union and pay
union dues as a condition of employment. Known as a union security agreement, the provisions removed any choice from the worker
and guaranteed a steady income for the union.

The NRLA was considered by many as giving labor unions too much power over labor policies. For example, the NRLA established a
list of unfair labor practices by employers, but not on the part of labor unions.

In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act sought to remedy the perceived imbalance of the NLRA favoring of labor unions. The Act amended the
NLRA to include a list of unfair labor practices by labor unions. It also prohibited closed shops and restricted union shops in favor of
“agency shops,” wherein a worker does not have to become a full member of the union, but must pay an “agency fee.” An agency fee is
the portion of union dues used to represent workers in collective bargaining and provide services to all represented workers. The
portion of dues used by a union for political activities or for organizing employees of other companies is excluded from the agency fee.

The Taft-Hartley Act also gave states the authority to enact “right-to-work” laws prohibiting mandatory agency shops and agency fees.
In these states, a worker cannot be required to join a union in order to gain or keep employment, nor can they be required to pay any
portion of union dues, such as agency fees. Instead workers in these states have the right to reject union representation and the
corresponding union dues or agency fees. Within a year of the Taft-Hartley Act, 12 states passed right-to-work laws.

Today, 24 states are right-to-work states. In 2012, Michigan and Indiana became the most recent states to pass right-to-work laws. That
same year, 17 other states debated right-to-work legislation. The year prior, in 2011, 16 states considered right-to-work bills. In 2013
the number of states introducing right-to-work legislation jumped to 21, along with legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress to create
a national right-to-work law. Missouri and Ohio are widely considered the next battleground states for right-to-work efforts.

Legal challenges have been mounted against Indiana’s new right-to-work law; two state judges have ruled the law unconstitutional and
the case will be heard by the Indiana Supreme Court this fall.

The Research on Right to Work

Studies show that states with right-to-work laws attract more new business than states without such laws. Right-to-work states typically
have a better business climate than non-right-to-work states, and employers value the labor-management predictability inherent in
stable right-to-work states. Employers in right-to-work states are not encumbered by disputes or the threat of work stoppages from
unions. Right-to-work laws ensure companies and workers will enjoy labor peace over the long term.

In fact, right-to-work status is considered a major factor in a business’s decision about where to locate. One professional site
consultant, whose clients include AT&T, Chevron, Dell, Honda, PepsiCo and Verizon Wireless, says, “Manufacturing companies look
for reasons to scratch off states when considering where to build major facilities—and no right-to-work law is at the top of the list. I can’t
underscore how critical right-to-work status is.”

Another professional site consultant agrees, saying that 50% of manufacturers automatically screen out any non-right-to-work state.

Nationally, the top three states for new manufacturing jobs are right-to-work states (Michigan, Texas and Indiana), and four of the five
top states for total manufacturing jobs are right-to-work states (Indiana, Arkansas, Michigan and Alabama). A study of bordering
counties located in right-to-work and non-right-to-work states found right-to-work counties have one-third more manufacturing jobs than
their non-right-to-work neighbor across the state line.

It is not coincidence that foreign automobile brands have located their U.S. plants primarily in right-to-work states like Alabama,
Tennessee, Mississippi and Indiana. According to the National Institute of Labor Relations Research, between 2002 and 2012, before
Indiana and Michigan passed right-to-work laws, the 22 states with right-to-work laws saw their share of nationwide automotive
manufacturing output increase from 36% to 52%. Real manufacturing GDP in those 22 right-to-work states grew by 87% during that
decade, but fell by 2% in non-right-to-work states.

The Congressional Research Service found that in the past decade, “aggregate employment in RTW states has increased modestly
while employment in union security states has declined.” Other studies echo these findings. Both employment growth and
manufacturing employment growth have consistently been higher in right-to-work states compared to non-right-to-work states over the
past two decades.

The average unemployment rate of right-to-work states is typically around 10% lower than in non-right-to-work states. In June 2014, the
national unemployment rate was 6.2%, while the average in right-to-work states was 5.5%, a rate difference of more than 11%.
Another study found that “incomes rise following the passage of right-to-work laws, even after adjusting for substantial population
growth that those laws also induce. Right-to-work states tend to be vibrant and growing; non-right-to-work states tend to be stagnant
and aging…the overall effect of a right-to-work law is to increase economic growth rates by 11.5%”. Yet another study found right-to-
work states outperformed non-right-to-work states in employment growth, population growth, in-migration and personal income growth.

The experience of Michigan bears this out. The state’s unemployment rate dropped from 10.4% in 2011 to 8.7% in 2013 after the right-
to-work law went into effect. The 2014 budget proposed by Michigan’s governor predicts the state’s growing auto and automotive parts
production will reduce unemployment to 8.3% in 2014, 7.5% in 2015 and 6.7% by 2016.

Michigan also enjoyed the ninth highest increase in per-capita income in the nation, from $38,291 in 2012 (before right-to-work became
law) to $39,215 in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Similarly, research suggests that foreign direct investment and manufacturing employment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased
significantly after these states passed right-to-work laws.

Does Right-to-Work Mean Work-For-Less?

Opponents of right-to-work laws disparagingly refer to them as “right-to-work-for-less” laws. They claim workers in right-to-work states
earn lower wages than employees in non-right-to-work states.

Right-to-work states generally have a significantly lower cost of living, meaning a relatively lower wage will support the same or better
standard of living as a family living in a costlier non-right-to-work state. So the lower than average wages in non-right-to-work states are
offset by the lower cost of living in those states.

In the first quarter of 2014, 20 of the 25 states with the lowest cost of living were right-to-work states. The remaining four right-to-work
states ranked between 29th and 35th. No right-to-work states fell in the top 15 states with the highest cost of living.

Once cost of living is accounted for, workers in right-to-work states actually enjoy higher real, spendable income than workers in non-
right-to-work states. As one researcher put it, “RTW states have average wages that are significantly higher than non-RTW states.”

The Arguments For and Against Right-to-Work

The arguments supporting right-to-work laws are simple—workers should have the freedom to decide whether they want to support a
union financially. If workers find sufficient value in the representation and services provided by a union, they will voluntarily pay union
dues to ensure the continuation of those services. If they do not believe they are receiving sufficient value, or if they oppose the political
activities of the union, they should not be forced to support the union. This core principle is summed up in Thomas Jefferson’s
statement about freedom of association:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and
tyrannical.”

The arguments against right-to-work claim such laws are designed to cripple unions by allowing “free riders” to take advantage of the
representation and services provided by a union without sharing in the cost. Opponents say federal law requires unions to represent all
workers at a company, whether or not they pay union dues, leaving unions in an impossible situation:

“Under a right-to-work law, people could withdraw from the union and wouldn’t have to pay anything. But we are still obligated by
federal law to represent them like we would represent a member.”

But this view is not accurate.

The NRLA does not obligate unions to represent non-members. Under federal law, unions are allowed to bargain solely for their own
dues-paying members under a “members-only” contract. The benefits secured under these contracts apply only to dues-paying
members. As noted by 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 every worker, even non-dues paying members, if they choose to invoke federal law allowing them
the privilege of “exclusive bargaining representation.” This monopoly bargaining option allows unions to represent and negotiate on
behalf off all employees in a company, regardless of whether every employee wants that representation. If unions opt to insist on
exclusive representation, the law then requires them to negotiate fairly for all workers. That is, the union cannot negotiate a lower wage
that discriminates against non-members.

If a union decides against exclusive monopoly bargaining, choosing instead to negotiate only on behalf of its own members, 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.

Why would a union choose to exclusive representation over members-only contracts? A Heritage Foundation study explains:

“They [unions] prefer exclusive representative status because it enables them to get a better contract for their supporters. Consider
seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a
union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join. Those workers would
negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions
available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back.”

So unions make the decision to negotiate as an exclusive representative in order to reap the benefits it provides, then use that choice
as the justification for forcing employees to pay for representation they may not want. In non-right-to-work states, workers who refuse to
join the union but must still pay union dues, or agency fees, are forced to pay for representation that results in labor contracts that may
be harmful to their economic interests. For example, a high performing worker is required to pay for a contract that rewards workers
who are lower performers, but who have greater seniority, and who thus receive higher wages and better benefits than they could
otherwise earn.

Some unions have made the shocking claim that forcing union workers to work alongside non-union workers is equivalent to slavery.
The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 filed a lawsuit in 2012 to overturn Indiana’s right-to-work law on the grounds
the law is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because union members are forced to work with those who
are not members of the union. Passed in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment outlaws “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” in the United
States. This union says it has been forced to work for free (the lawsuit calls it “involuntary servitude”) for non-union workers because
those workers do not pay union dues.

Is Right-to-Work Union Busting?

Right-to-work laws do not prohibit unions. Rather, unions must prove their value to workers and establish a voluntary relationship with
them. A voluntary relationship forces union executives to be more responsive and accountable to workers, and to do a better job.

In general, union membership is lower in right-to-work states. But right-to-work laws do not necessarily translate into lower union
membership. For example, one of the most powerful local unions in the country, Culinary Union Local 226 in Las Vegas, Nevada,
operates in a right-to-work state and boasts close to 100% union membership. The union represents 55,000 hotel and airport food
service workers in Nevada and has negotiated high wages and benefits for its members. Workers recognize the value provided by
Culinary Local 226 and freely, and happily, pay the dues to fund those efforts.

As noted by Richard Yeselson, labor researcher, writer, and ardent union supporter:

“There is an argument sometimes made by union activists that unions should run persuasion campaigns to collect dues because the
workers are more invested and supportive of an energized organization than when dues are passively/invisibly collected on a union’s
behalf. There is some evidence that this is true.”
Yeselson credits Culinary Local 226’s “intense advocacy” for its exceptional success in a right-to-work state. As a result, executives for
this union carry high credibility and influence, because there is no doubt they enjoy the firm support of their members.

The President of Oklahoma AFL-CIO said in 2012 that since his state adopted a right-to-work law in 2001, his union has not noticed
any significant decrease in membership:

“Somebody asked me how many workers got out because of right-to-work and I said, well, we don’t track that number…It’s like any
other workforce, where 10% cause you 90% of your problems. Those are the ones that bailed out of paying dues.”

Executives at these unions are not losing members because of their state’s right-to-work law; they are simply working harder to keep
their members happy and satisfied. The Oklahoma AFL-CIO President says his union discovered after that state became right-to-work
that “our labor-management relationship was terrible,” and those relationships have since improved.

And the extent to which union membership has declined in right-to-work states because of the right-to-work law is questionable when
considering the long-term national decline over the same time periods. Nationally, the rate of union membership has steadily declined
since 1983, dropping from 20.1% in 1983 to 11.3% in 2013, a decrease of 43.8% over the three-decade period.

Twelve states were right-to-work states within a year of passage of the

Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Between 1951 and 1976 eight more states became right-to-work. So just four states have become right-to-
work in recent decades; Idaho in 1985, Oklahoma in 2001, Indiana in 2012 and Michigan in 2013. The impact of right-to-work legislation
on union membership is difficult to quantify for the first 20 right-to-work states, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) did not begin
collecting data on union membership until 1983.

However, based on BLS data since then, the decline in union membership in the four most recent right-to-work states has not been
nearly as precipitous as predicted by right-to-work opponents, when the general decline in national union membership is taken into
account (see table).

Since Idaho became right-to-work in 1985, the number of workers represented in that state declined from 9% in 1984 to 4.7% in 2013.
That is a decrease of 47%. During that same time period, the national rate of union membership dropped from 18.8% in 1984 to 11.2%
in 2013, a decrease of 40%.

Oklahoma became right-to-work in 2001, and union membership in that state has actually increased by 10%, from 6.8% in 2000 to
7.5% in 2013. During that same time period, the national rate of union membership dropped from 13.5% to 11.2%, a 17% decrease.

Indiana became right-to-work in 2012, and union membership in that state decreased from 11.2% in 2011 to 9.3% in 2013, a decrease
of 17%. During that same time period the national rate of union membership dropped from 11.8% to 11.2%, a decrease of 5%.

Michigan became right-to-work in 2013, and union membership in that state decreased from 16.6% in 2012 to 16.3% in 2013. That is a
decrease of just 1.8%, compared to the national decrease of 5% over the same period.
While most right-to-work states have union membership rates lower than the national average (the average in right-to-work states is
6.6%), there are several outliers. Right-to-work states Alabama (10.7%), Iowa (10.1%), Michigan (16.3%), Indiana (9.3%), Kansas
(7.5%), Nebraska (7.3%), Oklahoma (7.5%) and Nevada (14.6%) have relatively high unionization rates, while non-right-to-work states
Colorado (7.6%) and New Mexico (6.2%) have low unionization rates.

Based on this data, it is clear that lower unionization rates in right-to-work states cannot be attributed solely to those states’ right-to-
work laws.

Union membership has been declining nationally for three decades. But many right-to-work states have high unionization rates. Some
experts theorize the typically lower union member rates in right-to-work states are due to those states’ historical dislike of unions, and
passage of a right-to-work law simply reflects that preference.

As the president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, whose mission is to “protect and improve the economic conditions of low
and middle income workers,” notes, “There is a general, across the board decline in unionization in the U.S. I don’t know that the
decline ... is greater in the original right-to-work states than it is in the non-right-to-work states.”

The Future of Right-to-Work

Labor unions have challenged the new right-to-work laws in Oklahoma, Indiana and Michigan. Those legal challenges, so far, have not
been successful.

In November 2014, the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously upheld that state’s new right-to-work law. In Michigan, a state appeals
court upheld the new law and a federal district court upheld the core components of the right-to-work law; it is now under consideration
by that state’s supreme court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected two attempts by labor unions to overturn that state’s right-to-work
law in 2004.

Another case may lead to every state becoming “right-to-work” for some government employees. In July 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that Illinois home health care workers cannot be forced to participate in a union or pay “agency fees” or dues. In Harris v. Quinn,
the court ruled those workers are “partial public employees” and are not subject to a law that allows public sector unions to collect
mandatory union dues, or agency fees, as a condition of employment.
Unlike regular government employees, home health care workers do not work for the state and are generally not paid directly by the
state; they are care providers who work for the disabled or elderly in private homes and are paid from the government entitlement
benefits received by their customers. Often these workers care for a family member and their union dues are automatically deducted
from their loved-one’s monthly Medicaid check. In many non-right-to-work states, including Washington, home health care workers are
required to pay union dues or agency fees, even if they do not want to be a union member.
The Harris ruling could impact hundreds of thousands of forcibly unionized home health care workers in California, Oregon,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Washington and Connecticut. Already, Illinois has agreed that the ruling means state-subsidized
home day care providers cannot be forced to pay union dues, known as “fair share fees.”
In Washington, the state has agreed to implement the decision in Harris pending the outcome of a lawsuit (Centeno v. Dept. of Social
and Health Services) to determine whether the Harris decision applies to home health care workers in this state. Individual home care
workers in Washington may now decline to join the union and pay union fees. However, if the court rules in Centeno that
the Harris decision does not apply to the union in Washington state, the earlier union security contract clause and forced unionization of
individual home care workers will be enforced.
Many legal scholars believe the ruling in Harris could lead to overturning a previous court decision that allows public sector workers to
be forcibly unionized in non-right-to-work states. That case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, set the precedent in 1977 that allows
government employees to be required to pay union dues or agency fees for representing them, even if they do not want that
representation.
Writing for the majority in Harris, Justice Alito expressed his concern with Abood, saying:
“Agency-fee provisions unquestionably impose a heavy burden on the First Amendment interests of objecting employees.”

In another Supreme Court ruling in 2012, Knox v. SEIU, the justices expressed concern that Abood may not sufficiently protect the First
Amendment freedom of association rights of workers forced to pay dues to an organization. The Court found the union’s “opt out” fee
policies, which allow the union to charge fees to workers unless they opt out of the automatic paycheck deduction, “approach, if they do
not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate.”
Pro right-to-work groups are already signaling their intention to use the Knox and Harris decisions as the foundation for a lawsuit to
overturn Abood. By most accounts, a ruling that reverses Abood and makes it illegal to require government workers to pay union dues
or agency fees for services they may not want, would lead to the same rights for private sector workers. If the Supreme Court someday
follows this reasoning and asserts the freedom of association of all workers, it would make every state a right-to-work state.

Conclusion
As private sector union membership continues to decline, public support for labor unions appears to be fading. The emergence of right-
to-work legislation in several states is evidence that policymakers and voters are rethinking the role of labor unions in today’s modern
workplace.

Unions were once an important means by which mistreated workers organized and demanded safe working conditions and fair wages,
but unions have since evolved into something altogether different. Instead of advocating on behalf of workers, unions have increasingly
turned into organizations that advocate for political causes that benefit union leadership more than union members. Union executives
are heavily involved in securing political campaign donations, and over 90% of union giving goes to candidates of one party.
Increasingly, private sector workers reject labor’s newly politicized role and resist the notion they should be forced to support that new
role.

Right-to-work laws do not ban unions or prevent them from serving the interests of their members. Right-to-work laws do not force
unions to represent non-paying “free riders” who take advantage of a union’s representation but do not pay their share. Rather, right-to-
work laws require unions to give workers a choice about financially supporting those efforts.

When unions are focusing their efforts on representing and servicing members, there is less time and there are fewer resources to
engage in the political activities that so many union members find objectionable. This redirection of union efforts results in a business
climate that is more attractive to new and existing businesses.

Right-to-work states boast better growth, wages and employment than non-right-to-work states.

Twenty-four states have decided right-to-work is right for their workers. Based on the overwhelming research of right-to-work states,
right-to-work has been right for those states’ workers, employers and economy. The question now is right-to-work right for Washington?
 International Transport Workers' Federation
 JANUARY 2018 DISPATCHER

The history of “right-to-work”

 JANUARY 26, 2018 4:24 PM
(INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION)

King knew it was wrong: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. pulled no punches about “right-to-work” being racist and immoral. The honorary member
of ILWU Local 10, spoke out in 1961: “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to
work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by
which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job
opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon
is our vote.” King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis while supporting a strike by public sanitation workers.
In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that legalized the right of workers to form unions,
negotiate contracts and conduct job actions. It also recognized the importance of “union shops” where all workers shared the cost of
maintaining their union. The President made a point of signing the NLRA (also known as the Wagner Act) in the port city of Tacoma, on
July 5. That date, recognized then and now as “Bloody Thursday,” honored waterfront workers killed during the West Coast waterfront
strike that gave rise to today’s ILWU.

Some workers were excluded

The new law helped millions join unions and improve working conditions during the next three decades – and created a more secure
working class that was eventually called “middle class” by those who were uncomfortable talking about working class power. But the
NLRA also excluded large numbers of workers in order to win enough votes to pass Congress where racist Southern legislators
demanded the exclusion of farm workers, domestic workers and public employees. To this day, those three classes of workers lack the
same federal protections that once protected most private-sector workers. Today those protections have been greatly weakened by big
business, but until recently, they allowed millions of workers to join unions

Business lost the first 4 rounds

Business owners who hated labor unions and President Roosevelt were furious when the NLRA passed in 1935. They sued to overturn
the law in federal court and tried to block unions from collecting dues from everyone in union shops. In 1937, the Supreme Court sided
with workers by allowing the NLRA to remain in place and confirmed the right of unions to collect fees from everyone in a union shop. In
just two years following major strikes in 1934 and organizing by longshore, auto, steel and other workers, at least four dramatic victories
had been secured: passage of the NLRA plus two victories in the Supreme Court, and passage of the Social Security Act that passed in
1935.

Excluded, but they organized

While private-sector workers were organizing during the 1930’s and three decades that followed, workers on farms, government jobs
and private households continued to struggle on their own, forming unions occasionally when they could, but receiving little or no
protection from the federal government.

Farm workers
In Hawaii, the ILWU made history with successful campaigns beginning in the early 1940’s that eventually organized the island’s sugar
and pineapple workers on a mass scale, enabling them to become the highest-paid agricultural workers in America.

Labor activists helped farm workers organize powerful strikes and some unions during the 1930’s in California’s Central Valley, Salinas
Valley, Imperial Valley and in eastern Washington State. Workers there continued organizing job actions throughout the 1960’s and
beyond when the United Farmworkers Union passed the first farm labor law in the country in 1975 that allowed farm workers to
organize unions in California.

In Southern states, activists helped tenant farmers and sharecroppers build unions during the 1930’s, helping both African-American
and white farm workers to loosen the grip of debt and abuse that forced many families to live in virtual slavery since the Civil War.

Domestic workers
Domestic workers, including many African American women, also organized in the 1930’s with assistance from activists including Ella
Baker, who described street corners in Manhattan and the Bronx as modern day “slave markets,” where women gathered each morning
for a daily “shape-up.” Like longshore workers, they organized, and eventually forced New York’s Mayor La Guardia to create hiring
halls with regulations that improved conditions for many.

In recent times, new organizing efforts by domestic workers have passed new domestic labor laws in eight states, including California,
Oregon and Hawaii.

Public workers form unions

Public employees were inspired during the 1930’s by gains made by private sector workers inside factories and warehouses. Some of
the first public workers to form unions were postal workers and teachers concerned about pay, benefits and working conditions – but
also about abusive politicians who encouraged bribery to determine pay and job assignments instead of civil service.

Public unions grow in 1960’s

Public sector unions saw relatively little growth until the 1960’s when large numbers began joining unions and demanding the right to
become legal and bargain contracts. During the next 30 years, organizing continued on a large scale as teachers, firemen, ferry
workers, police, security and prison guards, road repair, water and sewer workers, planners, librarians and others joined public unions.
By the year 2000 the number of public sector union members equaled private sector union members – while private-sector union
members declined to today’s level – just 6% of the workforce.

Good news and bad news

As pubic unions successfully organized for better wages and benefits in the 1960’s and beyond, they first tried to catch-up with better
paying jobs in the private sector that had risen because of union pressure. Workers also correctly noted that most public employees
received no Social Security (another exclusion granted to conservatives in 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed by
Congress), so demands for a secure retirement were addressed with defined-benefit pensions approved by politicians in charge of
school districts, cities, counties and state governments. Within a decade or so, public wage increases and benefits began to surpass
what private sector workers were able to bargain because their unions were growing weaker.
Anti-union reaction
At the same time, capitalists were shifting investment to the nonunion south and overseas, part of the “de-industrialization” and
offshoring that still haunts much of middle America. Inflation also increased during the 1970’s because of massive spending for the war
in Vietnam, along with funding for healthcare, education Medicare and other important programs.

Fear increased among workers and pensioners that they were falling behind and might lose their homes – especially in California where
property taxes kept rising to pay for the growing public sector, which accounted for one in six jobs in the Golden State.

These factors – including the different fortunes of public and private sector union members – created dangerous divisions within the
working class that were ripe for exploitation by right-wing politicians who used the opportunity to harvest votes by turning public and
private sector union members – and the large non-union working class – against each other.

Division & conquest

One of the first high-profile battles for the heart and soul of America’s divided working class was fought and lost in California over
Proposition 13. The property tax cap was the brainchild of two rightwing extremists; Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, who called their plan
to freeze property taxes, “the People’s Initiative.” The measure passed by almost 2-1 despite strong opposition from public sector
unions and most politicians. The following year, Paul Gann passed another initiative to severely limit government spending and punish
public union members. Politicians were terrified by the popular support for both initiatives, and some, including Jerry Brown, reversed
course to support Paul Gann and become a self-proclaimed “fiscal conservative.”

Union-friendly politicians, meanwhile, tried to maintain loyalty to both private and public sector union members. But private sector
members were increasingly anxious about their falling wages, rising taxes and dim prospects – while public sector members continued
to push for as much as they could win at the bargaining table – not always appreciating that their “employers” included many
increasingly anxious members of the working class who were being lured with appeals to “cut taxes” and vote against “greedy unions.”

As this conflict brewed, the fiscal crisis grew worse because the public sector kept growing in response to demands for education,
health care and services to help more families living in poverty.

Wisconsin and beyond

The culmination of these forces were on full view in Wisconsin during 2010, when voters transformed the state from a union and
Democratic Party stronghold, to a state that elected anti-union Governor Scott Walker. After winning, Walker stripped collective
bargaining rights from public employees, triggering massive protests and support from ILWU members who travelled there to show their
solidarity. But Walker defeated a recall election in 2012 and was reelected in 2014. Similarly, House Speaker Paul Ryan has
consistently won his swing district that once included many industrial union members before the jobs left when capitalists closed plants
in search of cheaper labor. Similar changes have taken place recently in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and other states where current and
former union members were once a powerful progressive block, but now increasingly vote for anti-union politicians who support tax
cuts, de-regulation, low wages, “right-to-work” and other antiunion laws. The final insult to union solidarity came with the election of
Donald Trump who had a long record of anti-union behavior that many current and former union members overlooked while accepting
his promises to restore jobs and power for the working class – then flipping to embrace Wall Street and the one-percent after winning
the election.

Business dream of “right to work”

The Supreme Court is now poised to outlaw the right of public unions to collect representation fees in “union shops,” and impose “right-
to-work” laws on all public union members.

This reversal marks the fulfillment of a dream going back to the 1930’s when Southern segregationists first peddled the idea of “right-to-
work” as part of a strategy to thwart unions, stop “race-mixing” in workplaces, and block racial minorities from gaining their fair share of
power and respect in society.

Trump backs anti-union case

On December 6, Trump administration lawyers in the Justice Department filed a “friend of the court” brief backing the Janus case
against union members.