Right-to-Work Laws and Unions in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review of Articles
Actual Legal Cases Dealing with the Right-to-Work Laws
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The right-to-work laws have remained controversial since their creation because of different reasons. According to Fitzpatrick (2016), the proponents of these laws argue that unionization is becoming irrelevant in a society where individual employees are trying to negotiate personal benefits with regard to their value to their organizations. Some of the leading companies around the world are embracing a new approach to compensating their workers. It means that a highly talented junior employee can earn better than senior workers. For such an employee, unions may be of little benefit in protecting the desired interests. The opponents of right-to-work laws argue that unions still play a critical role in the United States and should be supported by employees. In this paper, the researcher will investigate the need to expand or eliminate right-to-work laws in the United States. The researcher seeks to answer the question below:

Should the right to work laws be expanded or eliminated?

Review of Articles

The article “Morality of right-to-work laws” by Fitzpatrick (2016) focuses on the morality of this unionization concept. The author admits that both opponents and proponents of this law have valid reasons to hold on to their arguments based on the fact they present. Legal experts can make their claims on the basis of the existing laws in the country. However, the strongest argument presented in this article is the need to look at this issue from a moral perspective. Having a law that forces employees to join unions is unfair. It may be seen as a law that inhibits the inherent right of people to work. Some people have their personal reasons why they feel unions cannot work for them.

A good example is employees working in law firms. Different law firms handle different cases paying the varying amount of money. Trying to fight for a standard pay irrespective of the firm an employee is working for may be of benefit to some, but it may be disadvantageous to others. Fitzpatrick (2016) argues that some employees are empowered enough to fight for the benefits they believe they deserve without the help of unions. Such workers should not be forced to unionize. On the other hand, it is prudent to acknowledge that some workers are still vulnerable to molestation by their employers, and as such, they need the protection of the law. They need to have systems and structures that can ensure they are protected from any form of abuse in their workplace.

The article “Exploring the effects of right-to-work laws on private wages” by Roberts and Habans (2015) focuses on the impact that these laws have had on private wages. The strongest point that this article brings out is the ambiguity of the law. According to the authors, the right-to-work laws are not clear in focus. On the one end, it tries to liberalize membership to labor unions in the United States by giving workers the right to choose unions that they feel represent their rights in the best way possible. On the other end, the spirit of these laws tries to discourage unionization among American workers. Roberts and Habans (2015) argue that one of the main weaknesses of this law is that it is not emphatic enough to clarify what it seeks to achieve. Many opponents of this law argue that it was meant to discourage unionization in the country but in a direct way. Union members are expected to make monthly contributions to these organizations to facilitate their operations. It is normal for employees to resent any form of deduction to their salaries. When given the opportunity to opt-out of such payments, many would do so. Such eventualities may have a devastating impact on these unions. Many of them may be crippled as their financial sources continue to dwindle. It seems when enacting this law, the fundamental goal was to cripple and eliminate unions in an indirect manner. The law undermines the importance of unions.

According to the article “Are you a union member: Determinants and trends of subjective union membership in Italian society (1972–2013)” by Frangi and Barisione (2015) focused on the issue of right-to-work laws from a different angle. The authors wanted to look at the relevance of employees’ unions in modern American society. They looked at the findings made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the recent past. The bureau compared the performance and remuneration of unionized and non-unionized workers. It found out that unionized workers have a better average pay that non-unionized employees. The unions constantly champion for better pay for their members to reflect the cost of living. When they get an increase in salary, there is always an attempt to improve the quality of work they deliver to their employers. The fact that their pay is increased motivates the employees to have a greater commitment to their employers. On the other hand, non-unionized workers do not have a united voice of fighting for their rights. It forces an individual employee to find ways of fighting for better work-related policies. Employers find it easy to ignore a single employee who is demanding a raise (Frangi & Barisione, 2015). However, that is not the case when workers voice their interests as a unit. The outcome is that these non-unionized employees tend to be ignored. They work in a more stressful environment than those in unions.

“Do high-involvement work practices affect employee earnings in union and non-union settings in the Irish private sector” by Turner and Cross (2018) looked at the effect of unionization on employees’ earning and performance. One of the strongest arguments of right-to-work laws is that employees in the modern society are empowered enough to stand for their interests without direct support from unions. However, the findings made by these scholars show that collective bargaining power is still relevant in the modern capitalist working environment. Given an opportunity, employers will be interested in paying their workers the least salary possible.

The problem is that in the United States, some immigrants are willing to take such low pays because it is still better than the salaries they receive at home. The outcome is that many American-born workers are either pushed out of the job market or are forced to take such low-paying jobs. Just like it was in the past during the Industrial Revolution era, employers are still interested in reaping the highest benefits at the expense of their workers (Turner & Cross, 2018). Individual employees cannot fight this vice because they can be easily fired from the organization. It is necessary to have a large unit of employees whose voice can be heard and taken seriously by both the employers and the policy-makers in the country. As such, it is dangerous to downplay the significance of the employee’s union in the country. The article supports the elimination of such laws because they discourage unionization in the country.

Actual Legal Cases Dealing with the Right-to-Work Laws

Harris v. Quinn

Harris v. Quinn is one of the landmark court cases which are directly related to the right-to-work laws. The parties involved were Pamela Harris and her eight colleagues working in the healthcare sector as the appellants, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation as the respondent. NRWLDF claimed to represent the interest of Harris and her colleagues (Harris v. Quinn, 2014). In this case, the provisions of Illinois state laws, which allowed a union security agreement was challenged in the Supreme Court (Harris v. Quinn, 2014). Illinois’ Public Labor Relations Act permitted the union security agreements (Harris v. Quinn, 2014). It meant that labor unions in this state could collect fees from both members and non-members as long as they represented their interests.

It meant that workers had no right to opt-out of membership of these unions. Even if they decide to avoid membership, they were still required to pay monthly contributions, just like registered members did. The proponents of this Act argued that both members and non-members benefit from the activities of the union. As such, everyone should make regular contributions. On the other hand, the opponents of this Act argue that it goes against the First Amendment. The court ruled that the Act went against the First Amendment, and as such, was unlawful. The case set a major precedent on similar litigations on union security agreements. The case tried as much as possible to address the issues presented before it, but it left out the question of whether nonmembers should make a regular contribution to the unions. It explains why a similar case, Janus v. AFSCME is currently before the Supreme Court.

Janus v. AFSCME

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 is another landmark case that demonstrates the intrigues surrounding right-to-work laws. This case was before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Janus v. AFSCME, 2017). Parties to the case included Mark Janus, who was the appellant, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees as the defendant (Janus v. AFSCME, 2017). The defendant claimed to be a union representative of the appellant. The issue at hand was that Janus was opposed to making regular payments to the defendant claiming that he was not a member.

This case is closely related to the issue of right-to-work laws. It revolves around the issue of creating an environment where American workers can choose to be members of unions or not. Those who opt out should not be subjected to monthly contributions to these unions. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendants. It meant that AFSCME had the mandate to represent its members on issues of interest that affect its members. It also meant that non-members who directly benefit from the activities of the union are also expected to make some form of contributions. Given that the decision was made by a senior court, it set a major precedent to junior courts when dealing with similar litigations relating to contributions to be made by nonmembers. This case left out fundamental questions, especially in regard to how the relevance of the First Amendment to this case (Janus v. AFSCME, 2017). It explains why it was challenged in a superior court. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association

In this case, the Supreme Court was to determine whether it was a legal requirement for public sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from non-members before spending agency fees for election purposes (Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 2007). The parties, in this case, included Gary Davenport and his colleagues, who took Washington Education Association to court for spending their money without seeking their permission. Gary and his colleagues were nonmembers of the association, but they benefit from its activities. The issue presented in court was a complaint that the association spent money for election-related purposes, which to them, does not benefit the non-members.

They argued that the fee they pay to the organization should have direct benefits to them as non-members, and an election was not part of such activities. The Supreme Court held that a state requirement that public-sector unions should receive authorization for non-members when planning to spend their agency fees on election-related activities does not violate the First Amendment. The ruling set a precedent, which meant that it was possible for these unions to spend the money of their employees on election-related activities. However, they had to get permission from the non-members. These members had to be consulted and convinced to approve such expenses. It also addressed the fundamental question about the issue of spending nonmembers’ contributions for election purposes. It answered the question of whether it was a requirement to inform them before engaging in such expenses.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union

The case was a major shift from some of the precedents that had been set cases in the United States before then. The parties, in this case, included Diana Knox as the appellant and the Service Employees International Union (Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 2012). The issue was that the union did not inform Diana and her colleagues, who were non-members of the union- of the new charges that were meant to raise political funds. They also wanted the court to rule whether they could be allowed to opt-out of special fees that members have to pay for activities such as election and political activities, which are not directly linked to their benefits.

On the first issue, the court held that the association failed to duly inform its non-members of the special fee it had introduced for election. On the second issue, the court set a new precedent stating that non-members of unions should receive notice that gives them the option to opt into special fees (Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 2012). It meant that before charging any special fees, the association was required to inform the non-members about it and convince them to make such new payments. It means that unlike in the past, when unions could make deductions until such a time that the employee decides to opt-out, the new ruling set a precedent, which meant that the deductions could not be made until the approval of the non-members is received. It answered the question of when unions should increase fees for the nonmembers.

Conclusion

Right-to-work laws have been controversial in the United States and subject to numerous cases. When the unions fight for the rights of the employees, the outcome of their work benefits everyone. It means that those who have opted out of the unions will benefit at the expense of those who are members. They end up enjoying the benefits they did not pay for in the first place. However, the First Amendment allows employees to opt-out of unions that they believe do not represent their interest.

References

Davenport, G. v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (SC., 2007).

Fitzpatrick, B.H. (2016). Morality of right-to-work laws. The Catholic Lawyer, 2(2), 91-107.

Frangi, L., & Barisione, M. (2015). Are you a union member: Determinants and trends of subjective union membership in Italian society (1972–2013). European Review of Labor and Research, 21(4), 451 – 469.

Harris, P. et al. v. Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al., 573 U.S (SC., 2014).

Janus, M. v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council, US 746 (7th Cir., 2017).

Knox, D. v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 310 (SC, 2012).

Roberts, A., & Habans, R. (2015). Exploring the effects of right-to-work laws on private wages. The Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 5(1), 1-22.

Turner, T., & Cross, C. (2018). Do high-involvement work practices affect employee earnings in union and non-union settings in the Irish private sector? Personnel Review, 47(2), 425-440.

Click Here To Order Now!