It is Wednesday, February 23, 2011 and the standoff in Wisconsin is entering it’s seventh day. Much of the controversy has been centered around two main topics. First, the labor unions in Wisconsin are concerned that Governor Scott Walker is out to make them go bust and second, the Democrats in the Wisconsin State Senate have turned tail and left the state, trying to force the Governor and his GOP cohorts in the legislature to compromise. Since I have already covered the second topic, I want to examine the first a little closer. At the heart of the labor unions concerns is the fact that Governor Walker’s proposed legislation will remove the right of the union to bargain collectively for their members, except in the case of wages and salaries. They would not be allowed to bargain for benefit packages and they really don’t care for that idea. It’s not hard to imagine why, since this would remove some of their power and leverage. While they are crying foul and accusing the Governor of all manner of offenses, I think there is much more to this than meets the eye. At the root of their fear is something called the right to work and they would much rather it fade off into the sunset.
For those of you who do not know what the right to work means, it basically allows an individual to work anywhere they can find a job, without being forced to join or pay dues to a 
labor union. In other words, they are free to join a union or not, it’s their choice. That sounds like a good thing, does it not? Who in their right mind wouldn’t want an individual to have that freedom of choice? It may surprise you to find out that only 22 of these United States of America have laws that guarantee that right to work. That’s right, 28 states allow forced unionism and thereby force individuals to join or pay dues to a labor union, in order to work at certain jobs. If they refuse to do so, the unions can have them fired. I do not have the words to express how wrong I feel that is.
Someone needs to explain to me how forcing anyone to join a union before they can work is fair, much less legal. What gives anyone the right to do that? I would like to know how we arrived to this place in America, where an individual’s freedom to choose where they will work is restricted not by who will hire them, but by the labor unions who claim to be working for the rights of workers. How did we get to the place of having to pass legislation that guarantees an individual’s right to work? As I sit here writing these words, I still find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that this is even possible in America. We claim to be the land of the free, yet we have oppressive labor unions placing these restrictions on our workers and we have people like President Obama and and the Democrats covering their tracks. Keep in mind that some of these unions are the same ones who contributed directly to the failures of General Motors and Chrysler.
Opponents of right to work legislation like to say it has less to do with the right to work and more to do with lowering wages and benefits. They would like us to believe that right to work is always implemented for two purposes; to break the unions and to reduce the rights of workers. They would also tell us that without union muscle, workers will be unable to negotiate with their employers for decent wages and will cite all kinds of statistics to prove their point. I fail to see where that is the case. Let me quote a portion of the right to work law in my home state of Oklahoma, courtesy of the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation.
A. As used in this section, “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.
B. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to:
1. Resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization;
2. Become or remain a member of a labor organization;
3. Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization;
4. Pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges
regularly required of members of a labor organization; or5. Be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.
C. It shall be unlawful to deduct from the wages, earnings, or compensation of an employee any union dues, fees, assessments, or other charges to be held for, transferred to, or paid over to a labor organization unless the employee has first authorized such deduction.
How does this law lower wages and benefits? How does it destroy the rights of workers? They are still allowed to organize and join a union, yet they are not forced to do so. If the labor
unions are so sure they can do good for the workers, what are they afraid of? I have yet to see an honest American who will not join something that is a good cause. If the unions do good for the workers, will they not be rewarded with more members? Why do they need to require workers to join up, if they are doing such a bang up job?
Let me be clear, I think people should be free to make their own personal choices. That means they should be able to organized and join a union, if that is what they choose to do. It also means they should be free to choose to not join a union. That’s why we call it freedom of choice. Once you allow unions to force workers to join, forced unionism, if you will, that freedom of choice is taken away. Again, someone will have to explain to me how that is anything less than just plain wrong. Right to work should be the law in all 50 states.
It does seem the Wisconsin unions are most afraid of the state not collecting their dues for them. I guess they aren’t very confident that their forced membership will follow them and continue to pay the dues voluntarily.
I wonder why that is, Kerry? Do you suppose they may suspect they will not have as many members if the workers are not forced to join?
Forced solidarity is all the unions have left to hang on to.
Good post Larry! Soon there may be 23 “right to work states” as the New Hampshire House has passed right to work legislation and it is sure to pass the state Senate. The only question is:What is the governor going to do, but that may no matter as if it may have a vetoproof majority.
As for right to work, I am all for it. Let a person make his or her own choice as to whether or not they want to join a union. And if they choose not to they shouldn’t be punished.
I totally agree, Steve. That was the whole point of my post. A worker should be free to join a union or not, with no pressure from either side of the equation.
The reason the unions don’t like the right to work laws is because they say the companies can just refuse to give any raises if they don’t want to, there is nothing set in stone, as in a labor contract. They will tell you that wages and benefits would be no where near where they are now if it weren’t for the unions. The company can say this is what we are giving and if you don’t like it then you can go somewhere else and we will get someone who will do the job for what we are offering. The more members the union has in the plant the more leverage they feel they have when it comes to negotiating a good contract for the employees. But I can tell you first hand, having a union in the plant will not stop a company from running roughshod over an employee if they want to do so.
I can see both sides, I think. I have been a part of a company that did right by it’s employees without being bullied by a union. I have also seen where having a union didn’t do much good, the company did what they wanted and there wasn’t much the union could do about it and this union would tell you today the reason they couldn’t do anything about what the company wanted to do was because of the right to work laws. They will tell you if there was 100% union membership they could get something done. And when they say this, they mean by calling a strike. This is where it can really get ugly, as in when someone crosses the picket line. Things can go from bad to worse then.
You raise some very good points, Gary. I can see both sides of the issue, but I still think it is completely wrong for a worker to be forced to join a union. They should be free to choose.
An interesting topic, Larry. I grew up in a home where both my parents were members of the United Auto Worker’s Union. Yet I am 100% anti-union. Having said that, things are not always black and white. Sometimes they are grey. I have managed both union and non-union businesses. In my experience, non-union is better for both management an labor. However, unions do have one argument that is difficult to refute. Once a majority of employees vote to form a union, the company, by law, must recognize the right of the union to bargain on behave of the workers. The unions will argue that the wages and benefits that they “win” through bargaining are enjoyed by all employees and therefore, it is only right that all employees share in the costs of the unions. That argument, for me, is hard to refute.
Good points Jim. You’re right, you can’t refute that argument. One may say that the company should receive some credit for agreeing to the wage and benefit scale, but let’s face it, they wouldn’t have done so without the pressure from the union at the bargaining table. You also can’t refute the role of dues in their argument. People complain that a portion of their dues goes toward lobbying rather than the actual expenses of running the union, but you can’t separate the two. The union arguments on collective bargaining gains, dues distribution and dues collections are all valid and can’t be refuted.
The question needs to be about the long-term value of the union. Are they self-defeating in that they eventually price themselves out of business? The UAW is the poster child for this and we saw the results with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.
If the unions role were restricted to enforcing workplace safety and preventing worker abuses, their fate would be better. However, since they have taken on compensation and job retention as their primary goals, they get caught in a vacuum. That philosophy simply doesn’t equate to the ups and downs of the business cycle. The success of a business depends on flexibility and being dynamic and the constraints of union contracts simply don’t allow it. So, in the long run, are they more beneficial or detrimental? If they eventually price themselves out of business, I think the answer is clear.
I understand what you are saying, Jim and there is no doubt that there are times when a union may be the necessary tool to get the job done, to protect worker’s rights, etc. I know the union argument that the non-union employees enjoy the benefits without joining the union may be a valid point. However, I find it very difficult to come to the place where I believe forced union membership is the answer.
Passing right to work legislation is a good way to get your state house razed. I’m surprised New Hampshire isn’t seeing protests of greater magnitude than what we’ve gotten in Madison and Columbus.
I have already told my wife that I will go to columbus every day in support of right to work legislation. Gov. Kasich supports it, and hopefully can get the legislature to move on it.
I have also told her I would have a good chance of getting seriously injured, but would go anyway.
It does seem to stir up the wrath of the unions and they tend to show that wrath in a manner that is less than pleasant. What do you think the chances are of Ohio passing right to work legislation?
It’s not on the table yet, so I don’t know. Kasich is a strong-willed man, so I’m guessing that if it does come up, the votes will already have been counted and secured before draft legislation hits the floor.
In other words, if you hear that Ohio is taking it up, I would expect it to pass. I don’t think the legislature would want to bring the level of protests that would come to columbus unless it was pretty well assured of passing.
Great post Larry. I believe unions have outlived their usefulness. Government regulations have made illegal many or the labor practices that unions were originally formed to thwart. As for right to work legislation, in states that have right to work legislation their economies overall are doing much better than states that permit unions to control all aspects of labor. When are the people going to learn that these unions are leading them down a path to their own demise. Everything major industry the union has touched in this country has eventually packed up and left. From our textile industry to once mighty steel industry; all gone. The auto industry is next.
You make a very good point, John. It does seem that every major industry that has been influenced by the unions is gone with the wind. I know some may not agree with this, but I am of the opinion that the union was one of the direct causes of the failure of General Motors and Chrysler. They literally drove them into the ground.
I’m in complete agreement with you Larry. The Unions have a lot at stake. Without forcing Union dues, they lose money. I noticed in Indiana, they want non-union members to pay dues (I think it was Indiana). The Union power comes from supporting Democrats, and Democrat power comes from supporting Unions. Very dangerous for our Nation, as you expressed at my place.
Yes, Maggie. I think they are putting our country in a very dangerous position right now. It bothers me that they seem to not care about the damage they are causing, as long as they can get what they want.
I tried to leave a nice long comment, but the spam button ate it.
What happened, Matt. Did my spam plugin go all union on you? LOL!
Seriously, if you can drop me an email and let me know what it did, I will see if I can get it corrected.