Right-To-Work State Laws, Compulsory Union Dues and an Employee's Basic Freedoms

Indiana may soon enact right-to-work legislation. This simply means that an Indiana based employee, working in the private sector and represented by a union, would not be required by the state to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Although the principle behind right-to-work is based on simple common sense, the enactment of such state laws apparently represents an existential threat to unions and their leaders. At least that's the way unions react to these laws, and they may well be correct.

As a rule, midwestern industrial states don't have such worker protected free choice in the form of right-to-work laws. On the other hand, many southern and western states do have such worker and somewhat business friendly laws in effect.

Thus, the current Indiana initiative represents a serious struggle between unions and state officials with respect to the individual rights of private sector employees. Of course, companies remain free to locate their operations in whatever state they choose.

A Gathering Storm Over 'Right to Work' in Indiana says this about the various interests of unions, employees, states and private sector employers with respect to the presence or absence of state right-to-work laws:

"Nearly a year after legislatures in Wisconsin and several other Republican-dominated states curbed the power of public sector unions, lawmakers are now turning their sights toward private sector unions, setting up what is sure to be another political storm.

The thunderclouds are gathering first here in Indiana. The leaders of the Republican-controlled Legislature say that when the legislative session opens on Wednesday, their No. 1 priority will be to push through a business-friendly piece of legislation known as a right-to-work law.

If Indiana enacts such a law — and its sponsors say they have the votes — it will give new momentum to those who have previously pushed such legislation in Maine, Michigan, Missouri and other states. New Hampshire’s Republican-controlled Legislature was the last to pass a right-to-work bill in 2011, but it narrowly failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto by the Democratic governor; an Indiana law would re-energize that effort.

Right-to-work laws prohibit union contracts at private sector workplaces from requiring employees to pay any dues or other fees to the union. In states without such laws, workers at unionized workplaces generally have to pay such dues or fees.

Many right-to-work supporters say it is morally wrong to force unwilling workers to contribute to unions, while opponents argue that it is wrong to allow “free riders” not to support the unions that represent them in negotiations and arbitrations.

Right-to-work is also a potent political symbol that carries serious financial consequences for unions. Corporations view such laws as an important sign that a state has policies friendly to business. Labor leaders say that allowing workers to opt out of paying any money to the union that represents them weakens unions’ finances, bargaining clout and political power.

Organized labor has vowed to fight the Indiana bill, which it says would turn the state into the “Mississippi of the Midwest.” If the legislation passes, Indiana would become the first state to have such a law within the traditional manufacturing belt, a union stronghold that stretches from the Midwest to New England. Right-to-work laws exist in 22 states, almost all in the South and West, with Oklahoma the most recent to pass one, in 2001."

Let's consider the logic of right-to-work legislation. Should workers be free not to pay union dues? Or should they be forced to pay them against their wishes? In my view, simple logic dictates that in a free society employees shouldn't be forced by law to pay union dues.

Any such requirement concerning the coerced payment of union dues is fundamentally unfair. It's a gift by a state's politicians to its union supporters which will be paid for by unwilling private sector employees.

That cozy union and political partnership at the expense of workers and companies is simply wrong. In fact, too many states are globally uncompetitive today and will remain so until something changes to alter the unions' stranglehold over the workplace.

For that reason alone, every state should embrace right-to-work. Doing so would send a strong and unambiguous signal about a state's goals with respect to its competitiveness, job growth and future economic health.

In keeping with the spirit of voluntarism, if unions are perceived to be doing a good job, then individual employees will be willing to pay union dues. But if only a small number of employees volunteer to pay these dues, unions will either need to scale back operations or even elect to cease to represent a company's employees.

Unions much prefer a monopolistic environment in which to function. Through political contributions and other support, they use their political power to have favorable laws enacted which favor unions and their allies.

However, laws supporting unions are frequently laws which do not support the workers the unions represent. As in this example, right-to-work laws are not supportive of unions but instead are favorably oriented toward employees.

To repeat, if most employees voluntarily want to give the union money to represent them for whatever purposes they choose, they'll be willing to pay dues. And they'll also "encourage" their fellow employees to do likewise.

Now let's consider the union situation from an entirely different view.

Through negotiations with companies, unions obligate employers to pay some higher performing employees lower pay in order that lower performers can receive higher pay. In other words, equal pay in the bargaining unit has come to mean that all employees in a certain category of work, regardless of effort and skills, receive the same amount of compensation.

In such an environment, individuals have no incentive to excel. Mediocrity and dumbing down become the norm. Acting as monopolies, unions are invariably opposed to competition.

And we know what competition means. Competition acts to separate the overachievers from the underachievers. In school not everyone gets an 'A' grade. But some do and that often motivates others to try harder. Things continuously improve in such a competitive atmosphere.

Unions emphasize security and equal results as opposed to equal opportunity.

Concerning the fundamental distinction between security and opportunity, General Douglas MacArthur famously said, "There is no security on this earth; there is only opportunity."

So if we believe that unions provide job security or strive to achieve fair pay, we're believing the nonsensical. The union reality is that some people will be unfairly paid less so others can unfairly receive more. And in time all will be unlikely to perform excellent work.

Here's the harsh truth about what unions often do for and to people. It goes like this: If I do less than you, I will still get the same pay as you; but if I do a better job than you, I won't get paid any more than you.

So why should either of us work hard, innovate and excel? We won't. That's the union system at work.

I'm for right-to-work everywhere and for everybody. Equal opportunity for one and all.

That's the only viable route to a secure and prosperous American future.

Thanks. Bob.