Over the years, employees in the U.S. have gained many different protections through federal labor laws. For instance, in the decades since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, titles under said law have clarified that companies can’t discriminate against employees for their race, color, sex, gender, religion, and national origin. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) has been put in place to protect workers’ safety on the job, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 has been added to guard employees’ jobs when they have children, need to be a caretaker, or need to take leave themselves. (You can read more about how laws have progressed over time here.)
Labor unions aim to further and protect that kind of legislation, working to improve working conditions for employees in a range of industries. Unions take steps to ensure that workers are being compensated well and have all necessary and desirable benefits in place; they also take action when conditions endanger or exploit employees.
And overall, statistics are in unions' favor: Union workers earn 11.2 percent higher wages on average than nonunion workers, and 96 percent of union employees have employer-provided health insurance, compared to 69 percent of nonunion employees.
Why, then, do some states have laws that seem to be at odds with labor union advocacy? Let’s talk right-to-work laws, what they mean, and how they actually impact companies and employees.
What does right to work mean?
The name “right-to-work law” is confusing. It sounds like the provision would provide some kind of blanket right to employment to all Americans, yet that isn’t the definition.
Right-to-work laws essentially state that employees have the right to be part of a labor union if their workplace offers one, but they can also choose not to be part of one and still be employed by the company. The idea is that employees shouldn’t be forced to be part of a union or a specific union. Under the right-to-work law, all employees within a company are typically still protected by a collective bargaining agreement, even if they decide not to join the union or pay membership dues.
Introduced as part of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and its amendments over the years, right-to-work laws are left to be enacted by each individual state government, so there technically isn’t a federal right-to-work requirement. States that don’t have these laws in place may require that employees join a union and pay any associated fees, like membership dues, when they join a company with a union.
The 50 U.S. states are almost split down the middle on whether they have implemented right-to-work laws, with 27 states currently having them in place: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
What the supporters say: Arguments for right-to-work laws
Right-to-work laws are highly debated. Do they really help employees? Or do they do more harm than good?
Supporters of these laws believe that employees should never be required to be part of a union if they don’t want to be—they see it as being in conflict with personal liberty. And in terms of the economical impact, proponents theorize that businesses are more likely to want to operate in states with right-to-work laws because there are fewer hoops to jump through in order to get started.
In an interview with WOUB Public Media, Kenneth Troske, an economics professor at the University of Kentucky, underlined this point. “[It] sends a signal to businesses that, as a state, we are trying to make ourselves more open and friendly and flexible as possible for businesses that want to locate here,” Troske said.
Speaking specifically on the manufacturing industry, he added that right-to-work laws allow for more flexible workplace schedules, which can increase productivity. “That’s essentially what the research shows, is that when plants become unionized, you see a decline in their productivity,” Troske said.
Recent studies have found that states that adopt right-to-work laws have employees who report increased life satisfaction and economic sentiment. Families in right-to-work states also have a higher average after-tax income than those in states without the laws. They also have lower unemployment rates and, like Troske alluded, faster job growth for manufacturing and nonagricultural positions.
Someone in favor of right-to-work laws might argue for these pros:
-
Employee freedom: Right-to-work laws give employees the freedom to choose whether or not to join a labor union. This ensures that individuals are not forced to join or financially support a union against their will, preserving their right to work without being compelled to join a specific organization.
-
Economic growth: Right-to-work laws are often argued to promote economic growth by attracting businesses and investment. These laws create a more business-friendly environment by providing flexibility in labor relations, which can lead to increased job opportunities, higher wages, and overall economic prosperity.
-
Competitiveness: Right-to-work states have a competitive advantage over non-right-to-work states in attracting businesses. By offering a labor market that is more flexible and less burdened by union restrictions, these states can attract companies seeking lower labor costs and more flexibility in their workforce.
-
Individual negotiation: Right-to-work laws allow employees to negotiate their own employment terms, rather than relying solely on collective bargaining agreements. This gives individuals the ability to negotiate directly with employers based on their own skills, experience, and preferences, potentially resulting in better individual outcomes.
What the opponents say: Arguments against right-to-work laws
Many people oppose right to work, and data has shown plenty of downsides to the legislation. Some critics claim that federal laws already ensure that employees can never be forced to join a union at their place of employment. These critics believe that the laws are in place to help major corporations gain more power, making it more challenging for employees to form unions and take on collective bargaining. They believe that right-to-work laws end up weakening the power unions have.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) says that a worker’s pay decreases an average of 3.1 percent when right-to-work laws are passed, and that the average number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) discrimination charges is 36 percent higher in right-to-work states. This could be because states with right-to-work laws may see a lot fewer unions forming, so employee protections are limited, and no one is negotiating on their behalf with big corporations.
As Loyola University Professor Elizabeth Tandy Shermer wrote in The Washington Post a few years ago, “These statutes empower employers by undermining workers’ right to organize and rolling back the gains—better wages, working conditions, and hours—that unions fought to secure.” Employees may be allowed to choose to not join a union, but they may then face additional workplace challenges without union protection.
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), right-to-work laws “lower wages and benefits, weaken workplace protections, and decrease the likelihood that employers will be required to negotiate with their employees.” EPI’s research also found that these laws don’t actually help job growth in the states where they’re active.
There has been precedent on a federal level regarding right to work. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that companies in the public sector cannot require government employees to pay agency fees, so this means that, across the board, public-sector organizations are under right-to-work laws no matter the state they’re in.
The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act was passed by the House of Representatives in 2021, and it aims to do away with right-to-work laws so employees can form unions more easily. However, the PRO Act would still need to get passed in the Senate to be enacted.
Someone opposed to right-to-work laws might argue these cons:
-
Weakening unions: Right-to-work laws can weaken labor unions by reducing their membership and financial resources. This can make it more difficult for unions to negotiate on behalf of workers, potentially leading to lower wages, reduced benefits, and weaker job protections for employees.
-
Lower wages and benefits: Critics argue that right-to-work laws can lead to lower wages and benefits for workers. Without the collective bargaining power of unions, employees may struggle to negotiate favorable terms with employers, resulting in lower overall compensation packages.
-
Free-rider problem: Right-to-work laws allow employees in unionized workplaces to benefit from union negotiations and representation without having to pay union dues. This can create a free-rider problem, where some employees enjoy the benefits of union representation without contributing financially, potentially undermining the financial stability of unions.
-
Workplace safety: Some studies suggest that right-to-work laws are associated with lower workplace safety standards. Unions often play a role in advocating for and enforcing workplace safety regulations, and with weaker union presence, there may be less pressure on employers to maintain high safety standards and protect workers' wellbeing.
How are employers restricted under right-to-work laws?
In states with right-to-work laws, employers cannot require that an employee join or vote for a union in order to be employed at the company. Employers also cannot do the following, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):
-
Threaten the employee with job or benefits loss if they don’t join the union
-
Ask employees about their feelings about a union in an attempt to coerce or interfere with employees’ rights
-
Promise that employees will receive certain benefits if they don’t support a union
-
Change an employee’s work responsibilities or terminate them because of their union activity
-
Terminate, lay off, or demote workers because they filed an unfair labor practice charge or participated in an NLRB investigation
Employers essentially can’t have a say in employees’ preferences or actions relating to unions. However, this doesn’t always mean that employees are more empowered or treated equally in these companies.
How does right to work impact employees and unions?
Right-to-work laws ensure that employees are never forced to join a union or pay membership fees when they join a company. In addition, all employees should, theoretically, be treated equally under these laws, whether they’re part of the union or not.
But with right to work in place, all employees could technically receive the same benefits, like collective bargaining rights, even though not all employees are paying dues. Without union dues for all covered employees, union costs increase, and it becomes harder to maintain them.
The existence of these laws has been found to decrease unionization in some cases, in addition to the lower wages mentioned earlier. Unions may not form at all in a company or industry if it’s voluntary to join the union. This means that employees lose that negotiating power that unions provide to fight for their best interests, so companies can gain more power. They may not put all the same safeguards and protections in place for their workers.
For example, more employees have access to paid sick days and retirement benefits when they have a union behind them, aside from higher pay and access to health insurance. Unions give employees a voice and forms of recourse if they’re treated unfairly.
The bottom line
The arguments for right to work are that employees should be able to choose whether to join a union at their place of work, helping companies create equality and attract employees. However, critics believe the laws benefit corporations and weaken some of the protections that unions provide. Unemployment may be lower in states with these laws, but so is the average wage for workers. The existence and strength of unions may significantly diminish under right-to-work laws, which ends up impacting employees negatively and boosts corporations.
The debate is likely to continue, as over half of U.S. states have right-to-work laws in place, and the fate of the PRO Act hangs in the balance.
