preview

Right-To-Work Laws

Decent Essays

Rick Unger states that what many people believe about the right-to-work laws really does not have anything to do with giving people a right to work, nor does it protect those who already have a job from losing it. We have always understood that unions represented the closed shop concept, where people were required to join the union, pay dues, and remain a member in order to keep their jobs. Unger explains that the Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, virtually eliminated the closed shop concept. Workers would now benefit from labor agreements, regardless if a worker joined the union or not. It leveled the playing field which had previously favored the paying union member. Congress then decided that if a non-union member received the same benefits as the union member; the non-union member would be required to an “agency fee”. Ultimately, you were not required to join the union, but were still required to pay union dues. Later, a loophole in the Taft-Hatley act allowed states to do away with agency fees. So, now workers are not afraid of losing their job if they opt out of joining the union, but are still afforded the same benefits as union members, and don’t even have to pay. Unger suggests that now workers adhere …show more content…

It is evident that curtailing the power of unions by reducing membership will not give employees more freedoms. It is also too risky to wait and see if right-to-work laws create new jobs opportunities. Throughout history unions have been the driving force in achieving positive changes for employees against companies that to this day are still putting “profits ahead of workers”. Unions battled and won the eight-hour day, child labor laws, overtime pay, pensions, and workplace safety regulations. So when companies cannot be persuaded to provide for their workers, unions become the organized force behind the

Get Access