Contact us whenever you need it!

phone

+1 855 997 0206

Contact Hours: Sun-Sat 8am - 10pm ET

Right-to-work laws affect several aspects of workers' rights, especially concerning union membership and what rights workers have in their interactions with unions. Before we enter into the pros and cons of this type of law, let’s go over the basic definition of what they are.

What is a Right-to-Work Law?

Right-to-work laws provide a guarantee that no one can be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, and prevent contracts from requiring the hiring of only unionized workers.

They are a point of contention, as many pro-union opponents claim they are a power grab to undermine the protections of union jobs. Opponents also argue that it allows non-union members to benefit from a unionized setting without paying dues.

Right-to-work laws allow workers to choose whether they want to join a labor union. States without such laws require workers to pay union dues as a term of employment.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14 million workers in America belonged to unions in 2021. This indicated that many workers are affected by these laws.

Which States Have Right-To-Work Laws?

Currently, 26 states have right-to-work legislation implemented. Here is a table with each state and what year it came into effect:

State Year right-to-work law was implemented
Alabama 1953
Arizona 1947
Arkansas 1947
Florida 1943
Georgia 1947
Idaho 1985
Indiana 2012
Iowa 1947
Kansas 1958
Kentucky 2017
Louisiana 1976
Mississippi 1954
Nebraska 1947
Nevada 1951
North Carolina 1947
North Dakota 1947
Oklahoma 2001
South Carolina 1954
South Dakota 1947
Tennessee 1947
Texas 1993
Utah 1955
Virginia 1947
West Virginia 2016
Wisconsin 2015
Wyoming 1963

Pros of Right-to-Work Laws

The National Right to Work Committee compiled a report with findings that right-to-work states have a higher standard of living than those without such laws.

Here are some other advantages:

  1. Families have higher after-tax income and an increased spending capacity compared to their counterparts in states without right-to-work legislation.
  2. States with right-to-work laws have higher growth in manufacturing, combined with lower unemployment rates, according to Harvard.
  3. Passing a right-to-work law expands workers' rights, allowing them to choose whether a union represents their best interest.
  4. Right-to-work laws often result in lower school taxes.
  5. Ability to hold unions accountable for the advantages of union membership.
  6. Employees have more autonomy to negotiate their own career paths without interference from union contracts.
  7. Reduces the incentive for unions to organize workplaces where they have little support. Unions use less aggressive recruitment when employees cannot be forced to join, nor are they likely to pay dues.

Research from the Social Science Research Network has found that right-to-work laws positively impact individual well-being using several metrics, such as improved life satisfaction and economic sentiment.

Cons of Right-to-Work Laws

Those strongly opposed to these laws cite lower union membership as a main negative aspect, which then leaves employees without the protection and power of union contract negotiations. Other concerns include:

  1. The decline of unions resulted in a decline in health care coverage.
  2. At times these laws lead to lower salaries.
  3. At-will employment leaves employees vulnerable, meaning an employer can terminate an employee for any reason, at any time, without the need to give a reason, and with no legal liability. Employment contracts, however, remain enforceable in all states.
  4. Industries are forced to compete against low-wage countries.
  5. Workers in right-to-work states often choose not to pay union dues, leaving unions without valuable funds needed to fund campaigns.
  6. States that pass right-to-work legislation see a reduction in employee benefits. Pension rates, for example, are 5% lower for right-to-work states.
  7. Workers are more likely to be subjected to unsafe conditions and long hours.

Opponents of right-to-work laws are dissatisfied that employees who decide not to pay union dues enjoy the same benefits as dues-paying members.

Unions do the work to negotiate higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, which benefits all employees. However, their bargaining capability is reduced in right-to-work states where fewer workers participate as union members.

Which Federal Law Allowed States to pass Right-to-Work Laws?

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, opened the door to right-to-work laws by reforming the “closed shop” era. The reform was brought about by ongoing employee complaints about union rules that served as a criterion for employment.

The Taft-Hartley Act stipulates that unions are obligated to provide non-members with the benefits of union membership.

Employees, both member and non-member, are protected from wrongful termination by representation from the union. Further, non-union members can sue the union if it fails to successfully prosecute wrongful termination on their behalf.

The National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC) was crucial to the passing of Hartley-Taft and still exists today. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund, established in 1968, is another prominent supporter of right-to-work legislation.

Its stated mission is to eliminate coercive union power and abuses through litigation, public information campaigns, and education programs.

Both organizations have played a crucial role in the ongoing momentum of right-to-work laws throughout the country.

However, litigation against right-to-work legislation at the state level is ongoing. The primary argument remains that federal law already protected workers from forced union membership so states should not have to pass additional laws. Employees could choose not to be a member of the union but still had to pay dues to enjoy the privileges and advantages of union membership.

One example is how in 2023, Michigan voted to repeal the state’s right-to-work law for private employers after having one of these laws in force since 2012.

Although only 15% of Michigan workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, this law is still a large ideological step that may be followed by other states in the future.

Read More: Employment Termination Laws by State

Right-to-work laws affect several aspects of workers' rights, especially concerning union membership and what rights workers have in their interactions with unions. Before we enter into the pros and cons of this type of law, let’s go over the basic definition of what they are.

What is a Right-to-Work Law?

Right-to-work laws provide a guarantee that no one can be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment, and prevent contracts from requiring the hiring of only unionized workers.

They are a point of contention, as many pro-union opponents claim they are a power grab to undermine the protections of union jobs. Opponents also argue that it allows non-union members to benefit from a unionized setting without paying dues.

Right-to-work laws allow workers to choose whether they want to join a labor union. States without such laws require workers to pay union dues as a term of employment.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 14 million workers in America belonged to unions in 2021. This indicated that many workers are affected by these laws.

Which States Have Right-To-Work Laws?

Currently, 26 states have right-to-work legislation implemented. Here is a table with each state and what year it came into effect:

State Year right-to-work law was implemented
Alabama 1953
Arizona 1947
Arkansas 1947
Florida 1943
Georgia 1947
Idaho 1985
Indiana 2012
Iowa 1947
Kansas 1958
Kentucky 2017
Louisiana 1976
Mississippi 1954
Nebraska 1947
Nevada 1951
North Carolina 1947
North Dakota 1947
Oklahoma 2001
South Carolina 1954
South Dakota 1947
Tennessee 1947
Texas 1993
Utah 1955
Virginia 1947
West Virginia 2016
Wisconsin 2015
Wyoming 1963

Pros of Right-to-Work Laws

The National Right to Work Committee compiled a report with findings that right-to-work states have a higher standard of living than those without such laws.

Here are some other advantages:

  1. Families have higher after-tax income and an increased spending capacity compared to their counterparts in states without right-to-work legislation.
  2. States with right-to-work laws have higher growth in manufacturing, combined with lower unemployment rates, according to Harvard.
  3. Passing a right-to-work law expands workers' rights, allowing them to choose whether a union represents their best interest.
  4. Right-to-work laws often result in lower school taxes.
  5. Ability to hold unions accountable for the advantages of union membership.
  6. Employees have more autonomy to negotiate their own career paths without interference from union contracts.
  7. Reduces the incentive for unions to organize workplaces where they have little support. Unions use less aggressive recruitment when employees cannot be forced to join, nor are they likely to pay dues.

Research from the Social Science Research Network has found that right-to-work laws positively impact individual well-being using several metrics, such as improved life satisfaction and economic sentiment.

Cons of Right-to-Work Laws

Those strongly opposed to these laws cite lower union membership as a main negative aspect, which then leaves employees without the protection and power of union contract negotiations. Other concerns include:

  1. The decline of unions resulted in a decline in health care coverage.
  2. At times these laws lead to lower salaries.
  3. At-will employment leaves employees vulnerable, meaning an employer can terminate an employee for any reason, at any time, without the need to give a reason, and with no legal liability. Employment contracts, however, remain enforceable in all states.
  4. Industries are forced to compete against low-wage countries.
  5. Workers in right-to-work states often choose not to pay union dues, leaving unions without valuable funds needed to fund campaigns.
  6. States that pass right-to-work legislation see a reduction in employee benefits. Pension rates, for example, are 5% lower for right-to-work states.
  7. Workers are more likely to be subjected to unsafe conditions and long hours.

Opponents of right-to-work laws are dissatisfied that employees who decide not to pay union dues enjoy the same benefits as dues-paying members.

Unions do the work to negotiate higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, which benefits all employees. However, their bargaining capability is reduced in right-to-work states where fewer workers participate as union members.

Which Federal Law Allowed States to pass Right-to-Work Laws?

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, opened the door to right-to-work laws by reforming the “closed shop” era. The reform was brought about by ongoing employee complaints about union rules that served as a criterion for employment.

The Taft-Hartley Act stipulates that unions are obligated to provide non-members with the benefits of union membership.

Employees, both member and non-member, are protected from wrongful termination by representation from the union. Further, non-union members can sue the union if it fails to successfully prosecute wrongful termination on their behalf.

The National Right to Work Committee (NRTWC) was crucial to the passing of Hartley-Taft and still exists today. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund, established in 1968, is another prominent supporter of right-to-work legislation.

Its stated mission is to eliminate coercive union power and abuses through litigation, public information campaigns, and education programs.

Both organizations have played a crucial role in the ongoing momentum of right-to-work laws throughout the country.

However, litigation against right-to-work legislation at the state level is ongoing. The primary argument remains that federal law already protected workers from forced union membership so states should not have to pass additional laws. Employees could choose not to be a member of the union but still had to pay dues to enjoy the privileges and advantages of union membership.

One example is how in 2023, Michigan voted to repeal the state’s right-to-work law for private employers after having one of these laws in force since 2012.

Although only 15% of Michigan workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, this law is still a large ideological step that may be followed by other states in the future.

Read More: Employment Termination Laws by State