Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation to ban so-called “right to work” laws. such laws, passed in 25 states, prevent workers from collective bargaining.
“In March 2015, Scott Walker “proudly” made Wisconsin the 25th right-to-work state, dealing a devastating blow to workers in the state. Right-to-work laws are the right-wing’s favorite way to eliminate the power of unions in their states. They sell it to their constituents as a “protection” for employees against unions, but what the laws really do is leave them vulnerable to the corporations they work for. In Florida, for instance, a worker can be arbitrarily fired and negotiating higher wages is almost unheard of. Sanders’ bill would no longer allow state preemption of federal labor laws and, most importantly, it would make right-to-work laws a thing of the past.
“If passed, the Workplace Democracy Act, sponsored by Sanders and Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, would rectify current laws that deny American laborers their fundamental right to elect people to represent their best interests and negotiate the “terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection” on their behalf.”
Given that Republicans control Congress, the bill has zero chance of passing either House of Congress. But it is an important symbolic gesture on the part of Senator Sanders, showing that he understands that working people need unions to negotiate with powerful corporations.

It has always struck me as hypocritical that people who argue for the near sanctity of contracts will limit their sanctimony to contracts between corporations and exclude contracts between companies and unions.
LikeLike
They also don’t like contracts with workers – see 5 decades of pension theft for examples or the limited nature of ERISA or the underfunding of the Pension Guaranty Corporation and the benefits of dumping pensions onto it.
At this point, any union would be fools to try to negotiate for anything to do with future pension benefits other than avoiding decreases of current promises.
Politicians have been breaking worker contracts for generations by not passing their payments into the correct funds. The only contract sanctity we have now are not based in the future but based on current ownership as we’ve seen the future be stolen from repeatedly.
LikeLike
I have no problem with contracts between companies and unions….but I have a BIG problem with so-called “unions” who take it upon themselves to forcibly “represent” those who do NOT wish to be a part of said “contract”. There’s no “sanctimony” when it comes to a bunch of union extortionists coercing funding from honest, responsible workers who would just as soon have nothing to do with the process.
Beyond that, since when did [again, so-called] “labor contracts” become TRUE contracts? What do unions contract to do? What considerations do they provide? The old claim of “labor peace” just isn’t going to cut it; that’s nothing more than a declaration similar to that of a gang of teenage thugs who promise that they won’t smash a shopkeepers windows if he pays them off. Beyond that, just how many of those so-called “contracts” would be reached (as in a “meeting of the minds”) if employers weren’t literally FORCED to negotiate against their will via legal fiat? You think unions are in trouble now? Just think how well they’d do if they had to depend on VOLUNTARY membership and a truly VOLUNTARY bargaining process. Just the way unions complain about “rtw” legislation speaks volumes about just how competent they feel they are in terms of existing (or “not existing”, as the case may be) on a truly democratic basis in which individual workers have the ability to decides whether they want “representation” or.not.
In short, I’m all for TRUE contracts arranged by parties who actually ARE in agreement. But this travesty of what’s called “labor contracts”, however? Give me a break!
LikeLike
I know it really frosts me that I can’t pop up a big batch of popcorn and take it to my local movie theater to munch on at 1/10 the price they charge there. Gee, you’d think that buying a ticket was entering into some kind of contact or something. There oughta be a law agin it, and I think the Goobermint should dictate what kind of contracts movie theatres can oblige you to comply with.
LikeLike
No one is forced to join a union. There are far more non-union jobs than union jobs. Even in education, anyone is free to work at a private or non-union charter school. The issue is freeloading. People who work at a union workplace gain from the activities of the union, no matter how imperfect.
I might think the new military jet is expensive junk, but I do not stop paying all taxes because of that.
If you do not like working in a union organization, you are free to leave and find a non-union job. The reason unions are so confrontational is because of people with your views. If the public respected teachers, paid a living wage to educators, and actually listened to the voice from the classroom, unions would look a while lot different. In many ways, the anti-teacher, anti-union crowd has helped create the unions we have today.
Troubling is not support for true working Americans in unions, but the movement to suppress labor rights and eliminate Free Speech and Freedom to Assemble.
Contracts can be written on a napkin. In my years in business, contracts were negotiated and not everyone “agreed” and sang kumbaya afterward. Most of our contracts involved valuing a long term benefit and were not always mutually beneficial.
LikeLike
Unions are a result of the failure of management.
LikeLike
Awbrey;
I suspect it would REALLY “frost” you then if, while in the movie theater, a third party (NOT the theater owner) came up and strong-armed you to buy NON-EXISTENT “popcorn” from THEM.
In essence, that’s what unions do. The employers aren’t going to force the union issue on their own. And independent, responsible workers don’t want the type of “representation” unions claim to offer (after all, the prime characteristic of union membership over the past few decades has been the VASTLY INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF LOSING ONE’S JOB!). So what are we talking about here? I’ll tell ya’…an extortion racket that functions semi-legally on a massive scale.
Now, maybe it “frosts” you that society today isn’t all that interested in promoting the continuation of that racket. Maybe you’re one of those who think you can’t make it on your own merits without the existence of such a racket to back you up. But I suggest you get used to the idea that you’re going to increasingly find resistance to the type of “contract” travesty that you seem to support.
LikeLike
Meyer,
A better analogy than your frosted popcorn. We have an office coffee fund where everyone VOLUNTARILY contributes a few dollars a week. About 1/4 of the employees contribute, allowing the entire office to drink coffee. But the rest never chip in, drink all the coffee, and never make a new pot leaving it for the next person. When the pool collapses, no one gets coffee at the office anymore. Guess who complains the loudest?
Responsible employees support the organizations representing them rather than freeloading. If you don’t like your representation, run for a union position and improve the situation rather then impose your non-union beliefs on everyone else. Most grass roots unions are just classroom teachers on a volunteer basis. There are plenty of non-union jobs you can take. Union membership is at an all-time low.
In our state, the non-union jobs being created are low-wage, no-benefits, and terrible working conditions. Sure, more jobs can be created in an economy, but they are not quality jobs. The decline of union membership in American is correlated to the fall in true working Americans wages and benefits and the rise in income inequality. Less unions == declining living standards.
LikeLike
Less unions = better living standard.
Every time the union demands higher wages, the prices of products go up. Unions seem to be in denial about that, yet, it is a simple matter of math.
Product a costs 1. Worker a wants increase in pay. Cost of product a goes from 1 to 1.05 Customer a used to by product a for 1. Now customer has to pay 1.05 for product a. Customer now needs pay increase in order to continue purchasing product a, which now costs him 05 more.
Customer a’s employer now needs to increase price of product b, so that his employee can continue buying product a… And so it goes on. Prices go up all around. But at one point in time, product a gets too expensive to be produced in country a, so producers now move to country b to keep product a affordable. Now everybody is unhappy, except workers in country b. And in country b, the story starts all over…
All the current arguments about “living wages” are based on something entirely subjective. Who decided what a “living wage” is?
A person I work with started his job here driving a very economic vehicle. Since he uses his vehicle for transport from location to location in the work area (30 sites), he would get reimbursed .40 per mile. All was well. Then he decided he needed an SUV, which cost him 2x as much in fuel. Now the complaint: That measly .40 per mile does not even come close to cover my cost.
HE made the choice to change vehicles. Just because he did not do the math he feels he is owed a larger reimbursement.
So, does he make a “living wage” or not? He does not think so…
LikeLike
And I do chuckle at the hubris and naivety of the “merits” argument anti-union people put out there. No person is irreplaceable. You need to experience that to understand it, maybe. Nepotism and cronyism play more of a role than the myth of an effective meritocracy in the business world. Usually, the people doing the most work and contributing the most to success of an organization are appreciated the least. When cuts are made, the risk is socialized, but the benefits are privatized. That’s why someone like Fiorina can run a company into the ground, get a $42 million golden parachute, while 30,000 hard working employees are fired with just a kick out the door.
But because we have had strong unions in this country, true working Americans had a voice and stood up to being treated like expendable commodities. Societies without strong labor involvement in the political system deteriorate to a few with wealth and power, and most a subsistence or enslaved existance. Don’t kid yourself.
LikeLike
I do not think that workers should have to be part of a union to have a job. I also do not agree with unions collecting fees that support legislation that has nothing to do with the job.
LikeLike
So should teachers each negotiate their own contracts each year?
LikeLike
Explain your reasoning please. You don’t think bargaining in good faith is a good idea?
LikeLike
And I don’t that I should have to buy a franchise in order to re-sell Mickey D burgers outside one of their stores, but hey …
LikeLike
Love it. Wonder what would happen if I started selling Mickey Mouse t-shirts? Would Disney mind my at-will entrepreneurial spirit and free market freedoms?
LikeLike
(ed) And I don’t think that …
LikeLike
There are more non-union jobs than union. No one is forced to join a union or even work in a union organization. In our state, a person can not join the union and pays only for the activities of the union representation regarding working conditions. This is different from “right to work” which allows someone to gain the benefits of the union, by making someone else pay.
A good analogy. In our neighborhood, the homeowner’s association is voluntary. As a result, 25% of us pay the fees to have the grass cut at common entrances, legal representation, and lighting the streetlights. The other 75% pay nothing, but freeload and get the same benefits. If us responsible neighbors stopped paying, the lights go out and everyone is in the dark. (Guess who would complain the loudest?)
LikeLike
As a teacher in several different schools in two states I finally taught in a plaace where there was a strong teachers union. They fought for the rights of teachers in many different ways, described last week on my blog, “The Treasure Hunter,” .
LikeLike
Thank you Bernie!
LikeLike
Another reason I’m voting for Bernie. Just read that a large portion of the money contributed to Republican candidates come from a few wealthy. So what happened to the majority decides?
LikeLike
You know about the Koch Brothers, right?
LikeLike
Keep reading. It is not just to Republicans, although it is worse. Sanders is not taking large, corporate donations. Clinton is. You can be sure Biden would.
LikeLike
GO BERNIE!!!
Only one of the many reasons I love what he is doing. AND he has been doing it for decades. Among other things he filibustered for hours for a single payer medical system which, as Canadians have found out for half the amount of money we pay for medical care ALL U. S. Citizens would be covered. When i was in Canada I asked about waiting times for specialists etc. They wait no longer that do we..
That is NOT socialism, only a single payer system. Switzerland with a similar medical program has a corporation through which bills are paid.
LikeLike
Next Tuesday, Oct. 13 there will be hundreds if not thousands of people getting together to support Bernie by watching the 1st Democratic debate. On the link below you can find out where folks like you and me will be, check it out, you may want to go!
http://map.berniesanders.com/?source=web_full_nav#zipcode=&distance=50&eventtype=R&eventtype=CW&eventtype=E&eventtype=D&daterange=all-events
LikeLike
“When i was in Canada I asked about waiting times for specialists etc. They wait no longer that do we.”
Well, not quite the whole story. It depends on the province and its resources. Their system has its kinks, but obviously does a much better job of providing healthcare to everyone, but wealthier Canadians will still come to the states for specialist care because their money buys them access.
LikeLike
And this is priceless….( The young lady singing on the left graduated from the district I work in and she subbed with me last week when my co-teacher was out)
LikeLike
Love the video!
LikeLike
Perfect…lol. that should be a campaigne commercial !!!!!
LikeLike
Typical politician: Introduce a law that you KNOW will have no chance to make it anywhere, but it “looks good.” And party affiliation makes no difference, for that matter.
A law that would “…rectify current laws that deny American laborers their fundamental right to elect people to represent their best interests and negotiate the “terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection” on their behalf.”
I did not realize that there are such laws that “deny American laborers their fundamental right…” Of course, you can change a law that will “deny American laborers their fundamental rights to work without anyone to represent…” – but what have you got then?
I have worked in this country for the past 20 years, and as a non-union member (in a right to work State) I have never felt deprived of my rights to represent my best interests – without having to pay fees to anyone to do that for me.
As a matter of fact, All my professional life (46 years) I have been able to work and represent my best interests with employers.
What I dislike enormously is the paternalistic language in the statement “… to elect people to represent their best interests and negotiate the “terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection” on their behalf….” And this seems to be more a Democrat’s issue. It seems they always know what is best for me, and prefer to act in that manner – usually without my approval.
LikeLike
Very happy for you. Unfortunately without collective bargaining hundreds of thousands of workers would get screwed. Ask the teachers in North Carolina who haven’t had a raise in 6 or 7 years.
LikeLike
What you say is the sad truth, and it’s in ALL professions and all sectors, not just education.
LikeLike
I am a member of the AFT and my take home pay has decreased each of the three years of my now expired contract.
LikeLike
You are lucky. I worked non-union. If you spoke up, fought against corruption, said the wrong thing, or grew too many grey hairs, you were canned without a thought. You could make the company millions, but axed to make way for the CEOs nephew. Either you haven’t been in these situations and are very fortunate, or related to the right people. My experience is your situation is counter the norm, particularly in recessions and mergers.
LikeLike
You’re very lucky. Up until this year I would have agreed with you but we’ve had some pretty serious changes in our district that have resulted in quite a bit of personal unease. Two years ago, I believe I might have stood a chance if I filed a grievance. Today, none. Zero. I would not file a grievance against anyone in my school district unless I knew for sure I’d be able to keep my current income…oh wait, that’s what unions do, right?
Dang…I’m in RTW state.
LikeLike
Sanders seems to be the only voice that hasn’t been silenced by corporate influence. He has taken up the cause of ‘right to work’ laws and the exploitative practices of privatized prisons. I wish the line he has drawn in the sand included vocal support for democratic public education.
LikeLike
RTW laws don’t outlaw collective bargaining–they outlaw closed union shops. In other words, a union cannot force you to join it in those states. What it does is it gives the unions less money, and with that less power.
LikeLike
One state I know that is RTW is Nevada, which does allow for collective bargaining for teachers. They are two separate issues. RTW also has NOTHING to do with “at-will” employment.
LikeLike
Actually, it does. When my husband was fired from teaching at a charter school. He was fired because he reported a student using a computer at school to access porn. The kid had done it for months; my husband had the student in class for three weeks. When my husband tried to appeal the firing, he was told by the state employment department that they could do nothing because Utah is a Right to Work state, and therefore everyone was an at-will employee.
LikeLike
Even in RT States, contract law still exists – and is even followed. As a non-bargaining employee, I can argue against being fired when there is no cause for such.
LikeLike
RTW is a necessary condition for at-will treatment. A union contract would have due process. RTW is meant to eliminate the union. Hence, no due process == at-will.
Look at the other way. A union would have due process, not at-will.
LikeLike
Yes! You have the right to work with fewer rights, less bargaining power, and ultimately worse pay and working conditions. That you do have a right to!!!!
LikeLike
Actually, non-RTW states likes ours does not have “closed” shops, anymore. No one is forced to join the union or pay union dues. The employees do pay to cover union activities related to work conditions.
LikeLike
That’s Bernie like all politicians trying to get a vote for something that sounds good but could/will never happen… Add it to the list…. I do not trust any politicians at this point… They are puppets of the 1%
LikeLike
I am so very sad you feel that way. It is perhaps understandable in one sense of the word but Bernie has been fighting for these issues for decades. He will not be all things to all people and undoubtedly there will be issues on which you will disagree
but
I urge you to look at his record. It does not pay to be cynical when someone is at least trying to better things.
LikeLike
“working people need unions to negotiate with powerful corporations.”
Not just with corporations. We, in Tennessee, were envious of the striking teachers in Washington and the striking profs at U of IL, Chicago.
One question, though: why are there union and non-union jobs? Why don’t they make joining a union an option, irrespective of the job?
LikeLike
Excellent question. When you’re in the Union you get the protections of the contract that was bargained in good faith (hopefully). Non-Union, you have no guarantees period, unless you really trust the employer.
LikeLike
My question was more about why one *must* enter a union at certain jobs? Why can’t I decide if I want to be a union member irrespective of the job?
LikeLike
More precisley, why do they say that teachers in certain states must be also members of the teachers’ union, and in case of the union decides to strike, all the teachers must strike.
LikeLike
Your bias against collective bargaining units is showing. Contract provisions that anyone would consider perfectly matter of course between two companies you regard as out of bounds when they occur in contracts between a company and a collective bargaining unit.
If you work for Company A and Company A contracts to be the exclusive provider of Service X to Company B, then you are bound by that contract and you would consider it a violation of the contract if some independent operator who doesn’t work for Company A sought to provide Service X to Company B. It’s not one bit different if Company A is a collective bargaining unit.
Imagine the number of contracts between companies, between franchisers and franchisees, etc. that would be invalidated if some State outlawed exclusive provider and marketing territory clauses.
But that is exactly what RTW laws do.
So why do RTW laws get passed? Because corporations find it cheaper to buy politicians than to bargain in good faith with workers.
LikeLike
“Your bias against collective bargaining units is showing. ”
You are incorrect. I wrote, some of us in TN were envious of those educators who could strike. I have no problem with joining a union (I joined one voluntarily), and I have no problem with striking if needed. But not everybody is like me: not all teachers want to join a union, and not everybody wants to strike.
So I do not understand the following two issues
1) If I take a, say, teaching job, why is it mandatory to join a union (in some states)?
2) Once I joined a union, why is it mandatory to strike?
LikeLike
Are there still closed shops? No one has to join a teachers’ union as far as I know. Even if you do, no one can force you to walk out, but you will not be popular if you break the strike. It is hard for me to imagine a strike that is so frivolous that it has no merit. I can imagine not agreeing that teachers should strike, but I really don’t see how antagonizing co-workers who support the strike is going to improve working conditions or promote collegiality.
LikeLike
If joining a union is not mandatory, how can a right-2-work policy protect workers from unions? Is there a statistics comparing teachers’ salaries by states, noting right-2-work status?
LikeLike
Workers covered by a union contract would not have to pay their “fair share” of the costs of the union negotiations from which they benefit.
LikeLike
Then why can’t unions negotiate only on behalf of its members?
LikeLike
By law the union is required to negotiate for everyone. Everyone gets the benefits whether they are members or not.
LikeLike
According to http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287759/bad-arguments-against-right-work-james-sherk
“Federal law does not obligate unions to represent non-members. The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to sign “members’ only” contracts that apply only to dues-paying members. This is legally uncontroversial. In 1938, the Supreme Court expressly upheld union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of members. As William Gould, chairman of the NLRB under President Clinton, wrote, “the law now permits members-only bargaining for employees” — unions can exclude non-members from their contracts.”
I emphasize that I am very unhappy that TN is right-to-work. But, similarly to the advice that my kids could simply refuse TCAP testing (the TN standardized test), I cannot figure out what right-to-work allows and what it cannot allow for unions and educators.
LikeLike
Is it possible that there is a distinction between public and private unions?
LikeLike
Right To Work states change the law so you can get the benefits of the Union and not pay the dues or be apart of the union. They did that so they could destroy unions by hoping people wouldn’t join the unions and starve them of cash and the power they have in numbers, then the union would disappear and then they could start to take away benefits and pay from their employees with out the Unions to stop them from doing so.
People who don’t like Unions or hate them, never lived and worked in the time before we had them. Back then people were slaves to companies, go do some research on the days before unions.
The rich want to go back to the days when there were no unions, take a look at IL right now, the Governor is trying to do what all the other Repub governors have done and weaken Unions and take peoples pension give it to Wall Street and people will have less Retirement money because the fat cats in Wall Street will be taking a cut from the peoples hard earned pensions.
He also thinks that City workers make too much and wants to lower their wages by tens of thousands a year. This coming from someone who makes $25,000/hr as an entrepreneur.
I don’t know if you know this at all but in Europe CEOs don’t take all the money for themselves, they pay people a living wage and they put money back into the company and the services that they provide to people. When you fly on a plane owned by a European or European like country You will have much better service at a lower cost than in America, and this goes for just about anything else as well. I can travel around for very cheep in Europe and have a better outcome than I can in America by far.
It is really humorous that many Americans think they have it better than everyone else in the world when it isn’t true at all, not even close. Only the 1% have it better than everyone else in the world. This is why I am supporting Bernie and every other Candidate like him down the ballot.
LikeLike
Traditional conservatives are really big on the sanctity of contracts, but of course non-hypocritical conservatives went extinct a long time ago,
When Company X signs a contract with Company Y for the provision of specified services the contract will almost always say that Company Y shall be the exclusive provider of those services to Company X. Franchises work the same way, saying that the franchise owner has the exclusive right to sell a brand of burgers or coffee or whatever in a specified territory.
Just imagine the kind of stink a Genuine Conservative would raise at the undue interference with freedom of contracts if the State disallowed exclusive provider and franchise clauses, if the State legislated some kind of Freedom To Sell Any Brand Of Anything Anywhere Anyone Damn Well Pleases.
Well, it’s not one bit different if Company Y is a collective bargaining unit except for the fact that today’s brand of Pseudo-Conservative just plain hates the unions that made the Great American Middle Class possible.
LikeLike
I belong to a Union in NYC! For the Union haters, you have no clue the difference working for a Union shop vs a non union shop! The dues paid to the Union are peanuts when you factor in the pay difference, benefits and pensions, stuff for the most part you don’t get non union. In my sector of work non union contractors bids on jobs is fairly close to that of the union contractors bit the non union owners just pocket more money and their workers have poor working conditions, will work until they die, are unsafe and taken advantage of. Unions have their ups and downs, nepotism, but you have procedures against unfair labor practices, representation and when all else fails the National Labor Relations Board!
LikeLike
An educator specific version of this would be useful to see http://wrongforeveryone.org/more-facts-on-right-to-work/
LikeLike
to Ken Meyer: Free speech is great isn’t it Ken? My suggestion to you is to pass this word along to all of your free ride workers who disdain a union telling them how to do their job. And at the same time you should also express their need to refuse the living wages and pay raises, health benefits, safe working conditions, training, financial standing brought on by labor unions allowing more people a consistent annual wage to qualify for mortgages, car loans, and maybe a vacation to spend money in those expensive hotels the major corporations own.
I have been on both sides of the union/non union debate. I’ve been union and non union. I’ll take the union, because the top earners in this country want us to live hour by hour, not week to week or month to month. That is why we believe in collective bargaining.
LikeLike
Having worked for 15 years non-Union in the Electrical Industry, and now more than 22 years Union, I can assure you that there is indeed validity in Union Contracts with the Employer Groups. These contracts – also known as Collective Bargaining Agreements – are indeed protective of all concerned parties, to include the Employers. There are items spelled out which include minimum wage and benefits, but there are also items spelled out which include Management Rights. The CBA is an agreement signed by representatives of all concerned parties. Ken Myers, your comments above seem to be slanted by a lack of direct experience. I have experience on both sides of this issue, and the difference is phenomenal. Try it, you’ll like it.
LikeLike
….such laws, passed in 25 states, prevent workers from collective bargaining.
The author does not know what she is talking about. In a union shop state such as MD, if you work for employer X you have to join the union and pay union dues. In VA, a right to work state, you can work for employer X and not join the union. In VA the union is still suppose to represent you, say in a grievance, or if the employee got in trouble, even though you did not pay any dues. So workers are not prevented from collective bargaining. The worker has a choice in a Right to Work state.
LikeLike
In TN, you cannot strike at, say, a university. So I do not see the choice you are talking about.
LikeLike
I have the largest all union group on facebook called union members only, we started a post to sighn our local numbers down for Bernie on get rid of the rtw if we can in any way help please ask
LikeLike
First we have to get rid of nafter cafter and whay came after.
LikeLike
Where do I sign petition the wages in RTW states are so much lower we have to stop this
LikeLike
#feelthebern
LikeLike