Now that Michigan has become the 24th state to pass a “right to work” law, there is considerable confusion about the reasons for such legislation. Many corporations have long wanted such laws so they could be free of the demands of unions. Many rightwing politicians have wanted to decimate unions to remove their ability to fund liberal political campaigns.
This writer, Paul Cole, a labor activist, explains what the legislation means.
Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
National Labor Relations Act (Sec. 9)
Under American labor law, unlike many other countries, when a majority of workers in a determined bargaining unit, vote to be represented by a union, that union becomes the exclusive representative of all workers in that unit. The purpose is to provide employees with a single, unified voice in determining their conditions of employment and the opportunity for employers to deal with one entity, instead of many competing ones, to establish the rights and responsibilities of both the employer and employees.
Federal law that governs private sector workers, as well as many state public employee laws, guarantees every worker who is represented by a union equal and nondiscriminatory representation – meaning unions must provide the same services, vigorous advocacy, and contractual rights and benefits. The guarantee applies regardless of whether the employee is a union member or not. All non-dues-paying employees are provided full union representation at no charge.
If you are not a member of the union, you are fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between the union and your employer including wages, pensions, vacations, health insurance, seniority, and working hours.
The statutory right of exclusive representation mandates a “duty of fair representation” on the part of the union. It has the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. The right to speak for all employees in the bargaining unit carries with it the corresponding duty to protect them as well.
Federal and state laws also guarantee that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they do not support.
“Right-to-Work” laws make it illegal for employers and unions to mutually agree to require nonunion employees to pay fees to cover the benefits they legally receive under the collective bargaining agreement.
Fees have nothing to do with “forced unionism.”
Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, billionaire-funded conservative foundations and their Republican allies, want unions to be the only organizations in America that are required to provide benefits and services to individuals who pay nothing for them. This is the same as enabling some American citizens to opt out of paying taxes while making available all government services.
The real reason for the recent wave of “right-to-work” legislation, and other union weakening laws, has nothing to do with economic competitiveness but the weakening of the labor movement and its political influence. The only institution that stands in the way of the right wing’s domination of our nation’s political and economic system is the American labor movement.
This agenda was unmasked when Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald explained that “this battle” is about eliminating unions so that “the money is not there” for the labor movement.
Last year, the Michigan director of Americans for Prosperity, chaired nationally by David Koch, said, “We fight these battles on taxes and regulations but really what we would like to see is to take the unions out at the knees so they don’t have the resources to fight these battles.”
In virtually every case, the state legislation is taken straight out of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) playbook.
It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right-to-work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and working conditions for everyone… we demand this fraud be stopped.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Unions still exist in right to work states, but it’s true that they aren’t as powerful and wages tend to be lower in right to work states. On the other hand, as a teacher in South Florida I have witnessed two union presidents get indicted for embezzling funds from the teachers’ union in the past 10 years. A union is only as good as its leadership. Our union currently has very weak leadership that is under investigation for election fraud and is more interested in appeasing the district than bargaining on behalf of their members. I have gotten one $300 step increase in five years with increasing health insurance premiums every year. Union membership is $800 a year. For someone making $40,000, you do the math. In my district, non-union members do not receive any representation for work related issues. My union chose to split $30 million worth of district funds in a way that gave the top earners 75% of the funds. 8,000 teachers from steps 3 to 13 split 9% of the funds. If the union wants people to join, they need to prove their worth, cut the amount of administrative bloat and corruption ($800 is too high for what teachers receive in exchange) and stop using member funds for political campaigns (use the power of the teacher vote and direct the funds for nonpartisan lawsuits to fight anti-education legislation instead). I am not a Republican, but I do know some Republican teachers, and I can see why they would be angry having their union dues got to fund a democratic politician. All this being said, I am not against unions (just dysfunctional ones). Unions need to change with the times. Cut their costs, use social media, hire a good labor lawyer instead of a weak spokesperson for six figures. Maybe unions would be more effective at the school level?
First off how many in South Florida Business community have been indicted for embezzling, we’ve had 3 PTA’s go on trial recently. You say a “Union is only as good as it’s leadership”, you have that backwards, a Union is only as good as it’s members. Union’s are democratically elected, if leadership isn’t working, you change it. Your diatribe is the usual gibberish i hear from non union people acting as if they were a Union member. Also Union Funds are not given for partisan politics, except for PAC funds which a member must sign up for separately. Anyone that has to say they are not a “Republican” most always is, not that i care. You should look at your Governor and State Pols in Florida that have been screwing education for many years now, not a Union.
If you read my blog you will see that I am very critical of my governor and state Republicans. You will also see that my union president has lost one case for election fraud and is pending litigation for further election fraud, so much for the democratic process. Union members who have expressed opposition to leadership have been kicked out (what kind of union is that?). When I see Randi and Dennis riding Arne’s bus, and the FEA and my union celebrating Obama’s election and endorsing RTTT, I feel that they are more interested in supporting the Democratic party at all costs than their teachers. I am an independent thinker and voter capable of criticizing both sides. I have never voted Republican in my life and voted for Obama in 2008, so save me your “if you don’t support your union you must be a closet Republican” rant. I have been a more vocal and harsher critic of my district and the state Legislature than my union president and I don’t get paid six figures to do it.
I’ve been alive long enough to know I shouldn’t view any particular organization as the savior of anything important. Still, for some reason, every time I hear about these initiatives to make states into “right-to-mooch” states, I despair that there is any hope for the middle class to survive. Dividing the working class this finely against itself, not just between shops but within shops, means workers lose bosses win every freaking time.
I just don’t get too emotional about anything that happens anymore, politically, except this thing. And I’m not a super pro-union person (happy dues-paying union member, don’t get me wrong). But it seems so inherently unfair that my dues should be required to protect and support those who do not pay their fair share that it’s hard for me to imagine any reasonable legislature passing these laws. The fact that they do, and on a regular basis, just shows how incredibly powerful ALEC is.
It’s more like “right to semi-mooch.” If I have a problem with my principal, the union does not represent me. If she tries to fire me or transfer me to another school, the union is not going to come to my defense. When I went to the media and spoke out against overcrowded classrooms, it was my school’s PTA that came to my defense. I trust my work as a professional, my relationships with students and parents, and my $5 PTSA membership to aid me more if I come into conflict with an administrator over an $800 union membership.
I’ve only gotten one contractually negotiated $300 step increase in five years. I do not use my district’s health insurance plan because of the decrease in benefits and increase in cost. We now don’t even have the right to go into a pharmacy to get prescriptions filled. We have to order them in advance online. I don’t see myself as raking in massive benefits from my union for free.
My only experiences with my union from leadership down to union stewards have been negative so I am probably jaded. I do look to the Chicago teachers’ union and Karen Lewis as a model for what unions could and should be.
Diane — Thanks for this accurate description of Right-to-Work. (I write as a labor attorney with 30+ years experience representing govt and management, never unions or employees.)
What perhaps deserves greater emphasis is the point that, under federal and state labor laws, a union gains representative status only if a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit have demonstrated their support for the union — usually via a secret ballot election. And, if in the future, some of the employees want to eliminate the union or replace the union with another union, the employees can obtain an election for this purpose. There are limitations on the new-election option — the main limitations are 1) that at least 30% of the employees sign a petition seeking a new election (not stating opposition to the union, but simply stating a desire for a new election), 2) that the petition be filed either during a period when there is no union contract in effect or during a specified period towards the end of an existing union contract, and 3) that the employer not be engaging in serious unlawful actions damaging to the union. Also, an employer can lawfully withdraw recognition of the union if the employer has reasonable cause to believe that a majority of the employees reject union representation (subject to the during-the-union-contract and no-unlawful-actions limitations).
Similarly, in addition to getting rid of an unpopular union, employees who are unhappy with what the union is doing have federally-protected rights to retain the union while replacing the union leadership via internal union elections.
As the article implicitly notes, an analogy is often drawn between citizens’ relationship to their government and employees’ relationship to their union. Citizens and employees vote in secret ballots to elect their govt and union leaders. If the citizens/employees are unhappy with those leaders or their policies, they can elect new leaders in the next election. Between elections, the citizens/employees can participate in public meetings and exercise their free speech rights in an effort to change govt/union policies. However, whether or not the citizens/employees agree with the govt/union policies, they must comply with those policies until the policies are changed or until new leaders are elected. Similarly, citizens/employees must pay taxes/dues to support the govt/union and the govt/union would be largely ineffective if citizens/employees could obtain all the govt/union benefits without having to comply with the govt/union laws/rules and without having to pay the govt/union taxes/dues.
The only problem with this is that you have to trust elections are run freely and openly. Our union had to redo the Race to the Top vote last year because they used an internet voting firm and a judge ruled the election invalid. When we redid the vote on paper ballots, the union president refused to release the school site votes as mandated by election law. There is pending litigation over this vote as well. I heard Randi was reelected with 99% of the vote. Those sound like a Cuban election results.
I can see by the responses that unions can be both good and bad, just like everything else in our society. There are good companies that share profits and treat employees well and then there are the other kind. Some unions have got too big to help the people they are suppose to. I can see where people are fed up with big business and big unions. They seem to exist for themselves.
If we don’t study history, we are condemned to repeat it. Everything goes in cycles. When employees get fed up with the wages and conditions then they will start supporting unions again. We have to go through the late 1800’s again. Only this time it will be world wide.
Well I was a proud member of NEA for several years until I had a problem. My experience taught me that there were many aspects of employment law (i.e. Loudermill Letters) that even their attorneys did not know about. My state affiliate dropped the ball because it was not politically viable to have my back. So I hired my own attorney and came out on top. All is well.
I support things the union claims to support (due process, small class size, etc.). But, much to my dismay, the union seemed more interested in supporting their own existence than supporting the rights of a member against an illegal and wrongful act. Yet they would come during lunch breaks to sell memberships based on the premise that they would protect each individual member in the “unlikely” event of the unthinkable. All the years of dues I paid could have been saved for when I actually had to hire my own attorney.
I’m completely torn, and don’t know what to make of unions now. But I don’t believe they’re nearly as powerful as pundits would have the public believe.