Here Are the Cons of Right to Work Provisions

1. It isn’t really a right to work.

What the right to work provisions do is offer workers the chance to take advantage of the union benefits in a workplace without actually paying for that
representation in any way. This allows them to be “free riders.” Unions that are bargaining on the behalf of their members must also bargain for everyone in that
unit fairly, including non-represented workers. That means the goal of the provision is to undercut the ability of the union to negotiate more than it is to provide
an employee with a chance to work.
2. Non-represented workers can force the grievance process.
Laws in the United States require unions to provide a duty of fair representation. Workers can therefore disagree with the fees being charged for representation,
but force the union to provide representation services, such as the grievance process, on their behalf. This creates an artificial burden on the labor union, negating
the freedom of contract and value that can be offered.
3. Right to work lobbyists are funded by anti-union businesses.
The National Right to Work Committee was formed by a group of southern businessmen with one sole purpose: to fight the establishment of unions. The Legal
Defense Foundation and the National Right to Work Committee has received millions in grant money that comes from foundations controlled by anti-union
industrialists, such as the Olin Foundation. This provides further optics that these provisions are more about controlling the unions than providing people with
meaningful employment opportunities.
4. Many police, firefighter, and EMT unions are excluded from right to work provisions.
Many of the labor unions that are targeted by right to work laws will often support Democratic candidates for political office. Many of the legislatures which enact
right to work laws are controlled by Republicans. It is another set of optics which looks at these provisions as being a way to control workers instead of providing
better wages and benefits for them.
5. Wages in right to work states are lower.
In a 2011 study presented by the Economic Policy Institute, wages in states with right to work provisions are more than 3% lower when compared to states
without those provisions. That means the same worker in a comparable position will earn less than $1,500 per year in a right to work state using average wages as
the basis of the equation. According to data from the AFL-CIO, right to work laws cost workers over $5,500 per year.
6. Benefits are fewer in right to work states.
In states that have right to work provisions, the rate of employer-sponsored health insurance is more than 2.5% lower compared to states without right to work
laws. The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is nearly 5% lower in right to work states as well. Employers also spend much less on training and ongoing
educational opportunities for workers in right to work states, averaging more than $2,500 less per worker.
7. Injury and death rates are higher in right to work states.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that injury rates in right to work states is more than 50% higher than it is in states without right to work laws.
8. Unions may cease to exist in the right to work environment.
When workers are given the option to pay a union for representation or not pay a union for representation, many will choose the latter option. With fewer paying
members, a labor union has fewer opportunities to provide quality representation. Over time, that can cause the union to abandon the workplace because they
have no funds to provide representation. Should that happen, individual workers would be required to stand up for their rights and that doesn’t have the same
power as a unified voice.
9. It tilts the balance of power back to the employers.
When a labor union is present, you have a group of management facing off against a group of workers that are being represented. Without the union present, the
conflict becomes a group of managers against individual workers. This forces workers to accept the demands of the employer or risk losing their job and that can
result in reduced pay, fewer benefits, or longer hours. When a side is unified, it is more likely to be successful.
10. Corruption still occurs even in right to work states.
Anyone leadership group can be corrupt. With right to work laws, workers could be trading corrupt union leadership for corrupt organizational leadership – or
worse, corrupt political leadership. If the goal is to fight corruption, then there must be a balance in place that protects the rights and power of a unified voice for
the employee with the unified voices of others in leadership positions.
The pros and cons of right to work provisions show us that the ability to have the freedom to choose representation is still important. One could argue that
choosing a non-union workplace in a state without right to work laws still offers that freedom, but others say that any workplace should be an option for a
potential employee without the threat of union fees or forced representation.

Twelve of the 15 states with the worst pay gaps between men and women are “right to work” states.

3.1% the percent of of workers pay drops on average when right to work laws are passed.

It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and collective bargaining.

36% Percent higher the average number of discrimination charges the EEOC receives from right to work states

Being able to unionize is a HUMAN RIGHT.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights explains:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 8 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:
(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion
and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union organizations;
(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.

Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
(2) No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This
article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
(3) Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labor Organization Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Right to Organize

1. Opponents of RTW claim that the legislation creates a free-rider problem designed to undermine union power. This issue arises because the 1935 National
Labor Relations Act mandates that when a workplace decides to unionize, all workers receive representation from the labor organization; this policy does not
change after the implementation of RTW laws, even though employees can opt out of paying dues.
2. RTW creates a dangerous conflict for union-represented workers in these states. Even if employees decide against joining the union or paying dues, they still
receive access to all union benefits, including legal assistance if they need to file a grievance against the employer. Providing these services free-of-charge
devalues union membership, transforming the act of paying dues from a necessity into a charitable donation.
3. For individual workers’ bottom-line, RTW makes eschewing union membership an efficient option. When this phenomenon occurs at a massive scale, unions
are left with substantially fewer resources and therefore less influence in collective bargaining, which hurts workers in the long run.

7 Strongest Pros and Cons of Right To Work

Aug 15, 2015 by Crystal Ayres

In the recent months, Wisconsin became the 25th state to adopt the Right-to-Work law. With this development, the controversy surrounding this labor law is
back. And with President Obama expressing his plans about labor law changes, Americans are again divided on the Right-to-Work issue.

What is Right-to-Work?

This is a law that allows an individual to work at any place of employment without having to be forced to join a union in order to stay employed. It also prohibits
unions and employers to get into union security agreements and make workers pay dues and other forms of payment if they do not wish to.

It was the Taft-Harley Act of 1947 which authorized the states the ability to have RTW. Taft-Harley was focused on weakening the power of labor unions in the
workplace. And with the passing of RTW laws, mandatory initiation and membership fees are eradicated. However, there are arguments presented by both
proponents and opponents that should be taken into consideration.

List of Pros of Right to Work

1. It gives employees the freedom to choose if they want to join a union or not.
Supporters of this law assert that employees have the right to decide for themselves if they are to become union members or not. The Right-to-Work makes this
possible. Saying that this law mandates employees not to join labor unions is misconstrued. Instead, it gives workers the free will to act on their own and in effect
encouraging unions to work on enticing employees to sign up for membership. For proponents, this is better than forcing individuals to join against their will. This
is a great way to ensure labor unions will negotiate better with employers on working conditions, higher wages and equality in the workplace and act in the best
interest of members to keep the organization alive.
2. It can lower school taxes which is good for the average American earner.
Another benefit pointed out by proponents is again related to unions. They maintain that with the adoption of this law, there will be lesser teacher unions as is
evident in the states that have already have RTW. Consequently, there will be lower school taxes. And since these taxes are taken from property taxes, home
owners will have to pay lesser property taxes as opposed to homeowners living in states with no Right-to-Work laws. People who are for RTW say teachers’ unions
are responsible for the increase in education costs.
3. Unions become accountable.
One thing RTW does is weaken the power of unions to dictate on employees and coerce them to join. In reality, unions are money-making businesses. They collect
dues from members which can be too much. Moreover, as members, these employees cannot negotiate on their own nor can they let another labor union
support them. This can lead to union monopoly. RTW guarantees this is not going to happen. With this law, employees have the right to voluntary be a member
and quit if they are unhappy with how the union works. This way, unions will be more pro-employees and genuine with providing their services to members.
4. It minimizes corruption.
Advocates for RTW say that some unions monopolize particular sectors in some unions, thus affecting certain industry sectors. Also, a big part of the collected
dues from members are given to politicians for endorsements and in return they give their support to the unions and not necessarily the members benefiting from
this. In the states with RTW laws, this occurrence will be reduced since employees will not be forced to pay dues they don’t agree to. Lesser union members mean
lesser dues collected. In the end, politicians will not have a reason to favor selected unions just so they can get election money.

List of Cons of Right to Work

1. RTW laws result to fewer union membership turnouts which can affect workers.
Critics oppose Right-to-Work laws because of the effect on union memberships. They say that unions exist for the purpose of negotiating in behalf of the American
workers who can be unlawfully terminated, forced to work with poor working conditions and agree to accept low wages to keep their employment. If union
membership will be voluntary, there might not a union in most industries after all. Opponents argue that if this happens, employees will have no representation
and negotiators. They will not be able to demand for better working conditions and higher salaries which can contribute to poverty in the community.
2. The decline of union states resulted to inadequate or no health care coverage.
Anti-RTW groups have also mentioned on the effect of the increasing number of RTW states with regard to healthcare. With more and more employees choosing
not to be members of unions, they will be on their own. Unions have been instrumental in pushing for better health care coverage for workers as well as higher
pay and other benefits. The fact that states with Right-to-Work laws have workers with lesser wages is evidence that this is not beneficial to most of the working
people of America. Critics also are firm in saying unemployment rate is higher in states with RTW as well as higher percentage of fatal workplace accidents.
3. It allows non-members to get benefits for free.
Opponents of the RTW law are not happy with the fact that employees who are not paying dues enjoy the same benefits paying union members get. Unions will
be the ones negotiating and working for higher salaries, better working conditions and expanded benefits. With the existence of RTW, labor organizations which
have fought for employees’ rights might be dismantled and such occurrence can result to lower wages and lesser benefits for the workforce.
Conclusion

The ongoing debate on the Right-to-Work legislation will always be present between supporters and critics. Although it gives employees the freedom to decide for
themselves, labor activists and union workers are not happy about this. With the two sides having valid arguments, it would be difficult to discern which side of the
fence is better.

Right-to-work is a labor law term used to describe state laws or state constitutional provisions that ban any requirement of union membership or financial dues
obligations as a condition of employment. Currently RTW laws exist in 22 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. A right-to-
work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.

The opportunity to enact a right-to-work law is assured by Section 14(b) of the Federal Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (also called the Taft-Hartley Act).
That section reads:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.

These 44 words are fighting words to labor union officials who charge that their union security and solidarity is jeopardized by allowing individual workers to opt
out of any union membership or financial requirements. Right-to-work proponents, however, argue that these laws uphold the civil right of Americans to work
without being forced to pay union membership dues or agency fees in order to continue working.

In order to understand the role of economic analysis in the RTW debate, it is important to understand the main arguments marshaled by both supporters and
opponents of RTW laws. The primary argument of opponents is that workers benefit from union representation, and that therefore they should be required to pay
the cost of this representation. Unions argue that RTW laws create "free riders," employees who receive the benefits of a bargaining contract while escaping any
financial obligation to reimburse the union for the costs of collective bargaining.

To assess the merits of this claim, however, one must understand the nature of compulsory unionism as it relates to the rights and duties of workers covered by a
collective bargaining contract. Most important is the fact that federal law grants unions "exclusive representation" privileges. This means that once a union is
"recognized" (i.e., voted in by a majority of employees) it has the sole right to speak for the entire group of employees and negotiate on its behalf. Individual
employee negotiations are prohibited. This is true even when individuals have neither voted for a union nor desire union representation. A right-to-work law does
not affect this union privilege.

Exclusive representation therefore provides unions with total legal control in employee representation matters. Exclusivity not only makes it illegal for workers to
bargain on their own, but also prevents them from hiring another union or agent to deal on their behalf with their employers. Exclusivity normally prevents any
redress of a worker's problem without the union being present during an employer-worker meeting.

Supporters of RTW laws claim that because employees are prevented from selecting a competing representative during the union's period of exclusivity-that the
union has in essence a monopoly on worker representation-the union is likely to be less accountable to its members. This means that the union may, with relative
impunity, provide fewer services to employees or engage in political or social activities having nothing to do with workplace issues. Right-to-work advocates
therefore argue that requiring unions to earn the voluntary support of workers is one way to assure that union policies reflect the interests of the represented
workers.

One solution to the alleged "free-rider" problem would be to eliminate exclusive representation and permit a union to represent only those employees desiring its
representation. If a worker did not join and pay dues, the union would not be required to represent him, and the worker could negotiate his own employment
relationship with the employer. Labor union officials, however, consistently refuse to support this alternative. They fought hard for their federal exclusive
representation privileges and jealously protect them. They claim that exclusivity permits the union to wield the bargaining power necessary to balance the
interests of workers with the interests of management. Unions rely on their status as the sole representative for all bargaining unit workers to justify the payment
of forced union dues.

Supporters of RTW laws also take issue with the assumption, implicit in organized labor's "free rider" argument, that union representation benefits all employees
in the negotiating unit. Supporters state that workers are often "captive passengers" rather than "free riders." They claim there is always a group of highly skilled
or ambitious workers whose ability to get ahead is impeded by union contract restrictions such as rigid seniority clauses, which prevent them from competing for
advancement. Employees may also oppose union obligations because of union discrimination, which can result from employees objecting to forced financing of
union political activities.

The other major argument used by opponents of RTW laws is that working in a right-to-work state is "the right-to-work for less" or "the right-to-starve." This is
shorthand for the idea that enactment of a right-to-work law will weaken the union's ability to protect workers from management exploitation, and therefore
reduce the economic gains of workers.

The remainder of this study examines this latter claim, and suggests what economic impact a right-to-work law might have in Michigan. The analysis concludes
that RTW laws do not lead to a reduction in economic benefits for workers in RTW states and would not do so in Michigan. In fact, there are signs that RTW laws
have produced significant benefits for workers in those states. The debate surrounding RTW principles often centers on emotional rhetoric. This analysis, however,
provides empirical evidence that will help both supporters and opponents of right-to-work to assess more accurately the impact of a Michigan RTW law on
Michigan workers and their families.