Labour Unions

Cody Baker

Kaitlin Daugherty

English 102

5/5/15

Don’t Tread on Me

The Wagner Act was passed in 1935 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Second New Deal. The act held that a company could lawfully agree to be a closed shop, in which employees at unionized workplaces must be members of the union as a condition of employment. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed which repealed parts of the Wagner Act and most importantly outlawing the closed shop. A state law that outlaws such arrangements is known as a "right-to-work” state. Scholars argue whether or not right-to-work is beneficial to the people as well as the state. Critics say that it is a breach of individual rights and allows for some to be able to rely on the union without paying their share. On the other hand, many argue that it is an individuals’ right to be able to choose whether or not they need or want to be a part of the union. Do labor unions serve a purpose in today’s society? Yes, they do to some people. However, People have the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not. Forcing somebody to pay for something they have no interest in and goes against their beliefs is unjust. Some will argue that being right to work actually infringes employee’s safety rights. When in reality no significant results have confirmed that claim.  It offers individuals the opportunity to earn the wage they deserve based on skill, not a flat wage everybody earns.  Right-to-work, now constitutional in Wisconsin, not only positively affects the people of the state through increased wages, strengthening first amendments, and increased employment, but also benefits the businesses and state itself.

The constitutionality of right-to-work is the most controversial issue; right-to-work constitutionality lies upon the first amendment, particularly freedom of speech and freedom of assembly or association. Supporters argue that workers should be able to choose whether or not they want to join the union and pay union dues. They say that being forced into a collective bargain is actually financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. However, those like Catherine Fisk who contends in her article, “Courts Vs. Unions: Speech And Association Rights Under Fire” that it restricts freedom of association. Standing firmly she asserts “American law imposes a duty of fair representation on unions; consequently non-members in right to work states can and do force unions to provide, without compensation, grievance services that are paid for by union members. Hence right-to-work laws are not neutral, but rather impose an active and artificial burden on labor unions” (Catherine Fisk 47). She makes the case that right-to-work laws are unconstitutional by claiming that it gives people the opportunity to opt out of paying union dues allows for “free-riders”.  Many employers unionized or not, have a grievance fund for employees who are going through a tough time. Everybody can contribute to such a fund regularly which makes them eligible to receive assistance in a time of need. She also fails to acknowledge that those who do not join the union will not enjoy the benefits that those in it will. Scott Cohn in his article “Do Right-To-Work Laws Bring Competitive Advantage” confirms that those in the union have more “job security, seniority, and often times lower standards than those who do not belong.”(Cohn) It is simply ignorant to believe that those who are not a part of the union are “free-riders”. Everyone in the workforce is entitled to a minimum wage and certain protections under federal law. Just because both members of the union and those who are not receive them does not mean that those who are not members are “free-riders”. Cohn has a different view on right-to-work, however we both agree the term “free-riders” is a term that is not relevant. Critics such as Catherine Fisk are using self-victimization to trick people into believing that they are being taken advantage of. In all reality she is the one infringing on the first amendment rights we all are given.

Since the beginning of time money has always been a priority, and when wages increase people spend more, this directly helps the economy. Some scholars, such as Milton Fisk, believe that this is a result of labor unions. In his article, “Unions And The Road To Socialism” he composes that “labor unions have become non-existent and that has resulted in wage decreases. In order to regain a growing and a strong minimum wage he argues that labor unions need to regain their strength. She argues that right-to-work will only decrease wages” (Milton Fisk 37). Economists have taken a major interest with this fairly new idea and have found results opposite to those of what Milton Fisk concludes. David Fladeboe (State Senator) and Luke Hilgemann (CEO) of Americans for Prosperity have found that labor union advocates have been manipulating statistics to try and claim right-to-work to be detrimental. In the article “The Right-to-Work Advantage” they emphasize that “simple analyses do not mention that those earnings are unreasonable in union strongholds in the Northeast, Chicago and on the West Coast, where the cost of living is more expensive than in the right-to-work South and Midwest.” (Fladeboe, Hilgemann). It makes total sense that those areas would have a higher minimum wage since they are more congregated. So when cost of living is considered states with right to work have “4.1% higher per capita personal incomes than non-right-to-work states, according to a 2013 analysis by the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy” (Fladeboe, Hilgemann). Right-to-work gives workers the opportunity to prove they are a better worker than the average employee and they are then rewarded for it. It also allows for people to have a few extra dollars to save from not having to pay union dues. Some think that employers would then just pay employees the minimum amount required; however, the employer would then lose employees to other businesses with better opportunity for them.

         With Wisconsin now being a right-to-work state, employees now have a choice on whether they want to give union money or not. Kim Phillips-Fein asserts in her article “Why Workers Wont Unite” that the most that a union can require is that “employees pay a fair share fee for the union’s service in negotiating and administering the contract”. (Phillips-Fein 93) However, in right-to-work states they no longer can require non-union members to pay union dues and also fair share fees, but they are still required to bargain on their behalf. Yes, they still must bargain on behalf of everyone but it is not fair for people to have to pay for something or contribute money to an organization that then in turn sends money to a political party that goes against what that individual believes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy elaborates on his understanding of the constitution in Scott Reeder’s article, “'Fair share' dues to unions are unfair”. He believes it is a breach of the first amendment to “require anyone to pay union dues, in any form, as a condition of employment” (Reeder). People have the right to be their own agent for employment and if they feel that they don’t need such an organization they should not be required to pay into the organization or participate in it. Also they should be able to decide for themselves if they need the union to be their agent of representation, and if they elect not to they should not be forced to pay a fair share fee. If a union financially endorses a political candidate, which an employee does not agree with, it is only fair to give the employee the option to not contribute to the fund. People should be able to choose whether or not to support the candidate in which the union does. You simply can’t force a person to contribute to a certain political stance or a certain religion. It is against a citizen’s first amendment right. Now if the employee still wants to contribute to that candidate he/she still can through the union or even independently. Making Wisconsin a right to work state, simply upholds that right of the employee making a choice on what they choose to do with their hard earned money.