Let's have a controversy - Right to Work Laws in the US

[RichLB]

I've always viewed myself as a card carrying liberal, but I find myself on the other side of the fence regarding right to work laws. As I understand it, such laws prohibit companies from requiring employees to join a union as a requirement for employment - in other words, without such laws you are required to join a union in order to work. We liberals seem rabid in our opposition to such laws. But, to me, that doesn't make sense. Why should I be forced to join a union, pay hefty dues, and join in strikes for causes I may not support in order to secure a job? I understand that if I hold out I may benefit from the organized efforts of union members, but if a union is truly serving the interests of employees I would join it. Being forced to do so if I determine there is no benefit to me seems Machiavellian. C'mon, fellow liberals. Bring me back in line.

[Bob]

I think your understanding of the situation and history is a bit incomplete.

Historically, the unions forced the employers to agree in their labor contract to compel all new employees to belong to the union and/or to pay dues to the union if they should choose to not join the union. The logic from the union's point of view is that they spent their money and years of efforts to force the employer to improve working conditions and wages and that anybody that comes into the situation afterwards ought to support that union because the new hire is effectively getting the benefits of hard-fought improvements. So, in a way, I can understand and have some sympathy for the union's view. It was never the employer who wanted anybody to belong to a union (but, to get a bargaining agreement, the employer was forced to sign up a "closed shop" provision).

On the other hand, others argue justifiably in some cases that some of the unions are simply corrupt political-type organizations that exist solely to benefit themselves (and their top dogs). That's true in some cases but I don't think most of the cases. If I as a worker get the benefits that the union's power got for me, maybe I ought to pay just the same as any other worker (a member of the union) pays for those benefits.

Those who generally favor "right-to-work" laws (actually, this term is somewhat of a misnomer) take the view that unions are bad or worthless, don't like the unions, and want them all abolished. They argue and/or think that employers are just nice guys and will do the right thing (which, but for unions over the years, is probably a fair amount of bullshit). Many supporting these laws simply want to lower the cost of producing goods (i.e., lower wages).

There's some logic on both sides but I, for one, don't trust either the company to "do the right thing" or the union to "do the right thing" (at least in many cases). So I've got mixed feelings about both unions and the right-to-work laws.

[RichLB]

Bob, for once we agree. I see both sides of the argument and accept that without historical union efforts the plight of workers would indeed be drastic. But, as I naively see it, the contemporary power of unions has exceeded reason. Wage inflation has resulted in manufacturing firms fleeing the country to produce goods externally where more reasonable labor costs exist (and, yes, I realize many have relocated in countries where slave wages are the norm). The result of these escalating wages has been massive unemployment which is hardly good for workers. There seems to be something seriously wrong when a box boy at the local supermarket makes more than I, as a college professor, did when I began my career.

I am also troubled that some portion of these union dues are spent supporting political causes and candidates which I'm sure not all members agree with. I've been told, but can not verify, that some of these contributions have gone to support various social values issues such as Proposition 8 in California. Using union dues to foster agendas in opposition to some member's position seems unethical, to me.

All that being said, I'd hate to see unions abolished. They have, and continue to do, a lot of good. But, I still bristle at the thought of having my choice to join or not mandated by law.

[Bob]

But, I still bristle at the thought of having my choice to join or not mandated by law.

I tried to explain it but obviously failed. There is no law (nor was there any law) that mandated you join or not join a union. There are new laws (the so-called "right-to-work" laws) in some states that say that an employer cannot compel a new hired worker to join a union (or to make his employment contingent upon his joining a union) irrespective of the fact that the collective bargaining agreement that same employer signed with a union says otherwise.

[RichLB]

Ok, I think I understand now (I'm a little slow). There is no law which requires anyone to join a union. Right? But when a company joins in collective bargaining with a union, part of the resultant agreement might be that all employees must become union members. Right? The result is that if a person wishes to work for that organization he must become a union member and pay dues which can be used at the uniion officer's discretion (presumably to better the condition of workers). These proposed "Right to Work" bills being promoted abrogate this agreement formed through collective bargaining? Do I finally have it right?

If I do, I'm afraid my "liberal card" is a bit soiled. For the reasons I stated previously, I don't think I like the idea of being forced to join an organization which may promote causes and policies I don't like as a condition of employment.

[Bob]

Right?

Yep, you've got it.

I still have mixed feelings about these new right-to-work laws. It's the fat cats lobbying for these laws and they are getting away with cloaking their true intent in cries of more "freedom and democracy" (while, if they were honest about it, they'd simply flip the finger at the unions and say up front that they hope all unions are minimized and/or eradicated).