Why I Believe "Right to Work" Laws are Unconstitutional

[louis c]

First, let me explain what "right to work laws" mean and then I will try to explain my position that they are unconstitutional.

"Right to Work" basically nullifies the security clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which is a term for a union contract with an employer. The security clause requires any employee within that bargaining unit to become and remain a member of that union and pay dues as a condition of employment. In an earlier case, an employee contested this clause and the Supreme Court decided, in my opinion, a great alternative. If an employee did not want to be a part of the union because it abridged his or her free speech, they could opt out. The employee would still enjoy all the benefits of working in a union environment, but in lieu of dues, they would pay an agency fee. The agency fee would be set by the union and approved by the Labor Relations Board. The calculation would be based on subtracting the percentage of political work done by the union, and requiring the employee to pay the fee that remains. That number is usually 80% to 85% of the dues. As an aside, the federal government prohibits any dues money from being donated to any political candidate or party. Those donations are from a fund that the union member voluntarily has deducted and sent to the union PAC, on a separate deduction card, and has no bearing on their union membership or status. All donations must be approved by the general body. All of these restrictions I agree with.

In a right to work state (and in the nation, if the Janus decision goes against us in SCOTUS), an employee, working under a CBA can opt out of the union and pay no dues or agency fee whatsoever, yet enjoy all of the benefits that the union provides. Seniority, wages, health care, pensions and job security. That seems unfair on the face of it. But the part that really irks me, and, I believe, is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, is the job security part. If a non-union, non dues paying employee, working under the CBA has a problem of any kind, the union is forced, under penalty of federal law, to provide the exact services to a non dues paying, non union employee, that it does to a full fledged member. If an employee is disciplined in violation of the CBA, or is skipped in seniority in job bidding or overtime, or for any other complaint he or she may have in the workplace, the union MUST represent that person as if he or she was a member. That includes agent's time and a union paid lawyer, if required. If the union fails to provide these services, they face federal sanctions and fines levied by the NLRB.

Think of that. A union is forced to provide services for free to a person, with no reimbursement, under penalty of federal law. Never, in the history of this country, do I know of any organization, individual, entity or company that has to provide free services or products under penalty of federal law. Even hospitals, that cannot turn away uninsured emergency room patients, have a right to bill the individual, have a chance to collect fees from the insurance pool or get reimbursed from federal or state funds. Only unions MUST provide services for free and cannot charge the employee for those services and has no reimbursement recourse. How, in Heaven's name, can that be legal?

I thought I should post this here so everyone has the proper perspective of how onerous right to work laws are on unions.

[Farmer-Rick]

1. Forced to work and provide a service for no pay

Wow, why aren't corporations treated the same way?

[gratuitous]

10. I'd get behind that

Corporations can make no political donations or take any political actions without 100% of their membership voting to approve those donations or actions. Publicly traded corporations should have to account for each and every expenditure to its shareholders, and any individual shareholder has the absolute right to veto political activities by a corporation, including lobbying efforts designed to make the corporation more profitable to the presumed benefit of its shareholders. Corporations would also have to make a full accounting of their expenditures every year at their own expense, and pay a dividend to every objecting shareholder for political expenditures.

Call it the Goose and Gander Law.

[tonyt53]

2. I want to see how the Chamber of Commerce reacts to members that refuse to pay their dues.

[Ferrets are Cool]

3. Just because I am a contrarian, I call them "Right to FIre" laws...

because in MY state, the workers have NO rights when it comes to being employed. NONE

[Freddie]

5. That is called "Employment At Will"

When you can be fired for any reason whatsoever except certain forms of discrimination (good luck proving it). Right To Work specifically refers to unions (as above). Or, as it should be known, Right To Work For Less. And since it will encourage freeloaders who will get all the benefits of union membership for free, Representation Without Taxation.
I think OP has an excellent point. If fair-share fees will no longer be required, the freeloader should not get any of the "other" benefits of union representation (legal counsel in personnel matters, etc.), "only" the wages and benefits achieved by the union.

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. I see. Well, in Alabama, we are both.

That is correct - the State of Alabama is an Employment-at-Will State and does not have any laws on the books pertaining to the hiring and firing of an employee.

[Freddie]

7. PA has Employment At Will but we are not Right To Work

At least until SCOTUS once again screws the working person with the upcoming public unions case.
The converse to Employment At Will is that you can quit your job at any time and your employer has no recourse - cannot sue you for inconvenience, etc. Small consolation.

[DylanUSC]

4. Thanks for that; now if we could get the media to do more clarifying of these kind of issues for the

public, then get more of the public to read newspapers & periodicals, it all would help.

[Javaman]

8. we call it, "right to fire' law here in texas. nt

[Lee-Lee]

9. Unfortunately if you push this it may not work out well

Because the answer will be “then let them not be covered under the CBA if you don’t want to cover them.”

Instead of forcing union membership, as it should, the default will probably be that they say “Ok, then if you want to join the union you get full rights and coverage under the CBA, if not then you are not in the union and your employment is between you and the company and your on your own”.

And if that is allowed, employees to be allowed in the same work force, then that will be used to destroy the union. The employer will make job offers, pay and benefits seem sweeter if if opt out. They will eat away at the union leverage because labor actions will no longer mean all employees act in solidarity.

That is why unions accept having to represent the few freeloaders, because doing so keeps away the chance that they can be allowed to opt out of the CBA totally. Keeping the entire bargaining unit and work force under the CBA is a priority. If they are allowed to leave the CBA and work the same job for the same employer they pose a real threat to the unions survival.

[louis c]

11. The Company always has to obey the contract

The way this would have to work is that an employee would be sent a bill for union services, a la carte.

If we bargain every three years, we take the cost of bargaining and divide it by the members. That wouldn't come out to more than $100 to $200 for each member. The members are covered by their dues, the non-members get sent a bill and have to pay that to get their raises. If a non-union employee ends up with a complaint concerning the contract, an agent would represent them and charge them for that time, using their salary as the bench mark, to be paid to the union. If they needed an attorney, they would pay the same rate that the attorney charges the union, by the hour.

You can't drive your car around, get in an accident, and then have an insurance company pay the bill to fix your car, and still not pay an insurance premium.

[MichMan]

12. The last thing any union wants is for someone to be able to represent themselves

Lee Lee,

You are 100% correct. All it would take is for a few highly valued employees to make more $$ than the ones covered by the union contract, and people would start leaving the union in droves. No union can ever take that risk. They may bemoan "freeloaders" on one hand, but insist on representing them with the other

[Lee-Lee]

13. Its not even about highly valued

If companies were allowed to hire outside the bargaining unit at a different pay rate, benefits or anything else that’s all they have to do.

“Hey, the contract says union members get 3 weeks vacation. We are following that, but are offering employees not bound by that contract 4.5 weeks of vacation”.

Bam- you’ve destroyed the union.

[louis c]

15. once the union is destroyed, everyone will get 2 weeks vacation

The company wants to pay as little as possible for labor. Even if they pull some short term bullshit scam, the plan would be to pay less for labor, in the long run, not more.

[louis c]

14. Dept. of Labor

shows that the average union worker makes about 28% more than the average non-union worker doing similar work.

Non-Union workers do make more money than union workers in the same workplace. They're called management employees.

If your statement had any basis in fact, than non-union workers would make more money than union workers.

I represent union electricians in a major city. The pay and benefits are about $100 an hour for a journeyman. The non-union electricians make about half that. Why do you think that is? Oh, and by the way, we are at 97% employment for 6,500 members.

If individual bargaining was better than collective bargaining, wouldn't those facts be reversed?

[Lee-Lee]

17. Trade unions and unions in a company are different

What I’m talking about is how they can use a temporary boost in pay or benefits to draw people out of the union long enough to take away its power and influence.

In an industrial type union, like in a plant, that kills the union. Because once you allow the workforce to be mixed between the two it allows management a tool to use against the union.

[onenote]

16. don't see a 'commerce clause' argument.

Maybe a takings clause argument, but that would be a stretch since regulatory takings cases are notoriously hard to win.

[Demsrule86]

18. I agree with you, but we have a corrupt right wing Supreme Court so I fear the worst.

16 was such an important election in terms of the court...this is intended to make unions fail everywhere.