R i g h t a r d i a: Right to work law and the The Taft-Hartley Act

by Wirehead

The right wing wants the 'good ol' days when their were labor riots

Because here is so much disinformation about unions and the "right to work," Rightardia used a lot a of information form Wikipedia in this article.

Last night Middle Class Warrior was reading a Usenet post which suggested that unions hire employees and if an employee didn't join the union they could be fired.

First of all, unions don't hire new employees, private entrprise does. if you live in a state that does not have a 'right to work' law, you can be fired for not paying dues. In a 'right to work' state, you do not have pay union dues.

Wirehead, out IT editor, worked for some big IT companies who were represented by the Communication Workers of America in a 'right to work' state. This meant he didn't have to pay union dues, but he was still fully represented by the union. His union dues were $22 a month.

Although he paid his dues, others did not not. Of course, the minute these pseudo-scab workers got into a dispute with their boss, they went running with their hair on fire to the union steward.

There were some whiners and complainers in the local union and also some very bad managers in the corporations that I worked for. The one weapon a union worker has to deal with bad mangers is that they can file a grievance. Most of the grievances were justified and the manager apologized, something you will never see in a non-union shop.

Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress , unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment.

Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop. The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a union shop rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire.

Under union shop rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.

A similar arrangement to the union shop is the agency shop, under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.

The Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions.

Under the open shop rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the 'right to work,' regardless of whether or not he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

The Federal Government operates under open shop rules nationwide, although many of its employees are represented by unions.

Unions representing professional athletes have written contracts which impose union requirements. Aaron Rodgers, the Super Bowl winning quarterback, is a strong union man. The Green Bay packers won the Super Bowl with the public option because it is the only NFL team owned by a city.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to analyze right-to-work laws by comparing states. This is because there are other differences between states that are strongly associated with right-to-work laws.For instance, states with RTW laws have other pro-business laws, which makes it difficult to determine the effect of any single law.

The corporatists will suggest that states with right to work laws are prospering while those with unions are failing. This is not really the case. the economic powerhouses in the US are the North-West and the "left coast."

The low tax/no tax mentality of the Red States has produced record deficits in Texas and Florida. The states that are the recipient states for Federal funds are the Red states. They receive more federal money that they contribute in taxes. These are the same states in which 40 per cent of the people pay no federal income tax because their wages are low

The 'right to work' law states are in the south and west:

Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem, in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.

Unions also cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that in 2003 the rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers was highest in right-to-work states.

Rightardia's view of "right to work' law is that it weakens unions because only a percentage of workers pay dues that are needed to pay for union halls and national union activity.