The Republicans are claiming this is an issue of "freedom of choice", giving a worker who hires into a union job the choice of whether to join the union or not. The truth is that it has nothing at all to do with choice. It is just an effort to weaken (and eventually destroy) the union movement. It lets workers reap the benefits won by unions without paying union dues or joining union members in strikes or other actions.
The only real power a union has is in its solidarity -- its ability to include all of the workers in a company. If a significant portion of workers do not join the union, then the union loses much of its power -- and it is unable to protect the workers as far as wages, benefits, safety, fairness, and other issues are concerned. And when the union loses power, all workers have less (or no) protection from employers.
Too many people these days seem to think that employers are good-hearted and will always provide the best pay and benefits possible, and make sure that employees are treated fairly and have a safe working environment. That is simply not true. Employers are in the business of making money (not protecting employees), and if they can make another nickel by abusing employees they will do it. All you have to do is look at history to know this. No employer ever provided anything for their employees that they weren't forced to do by unions (or the fear of being unionized).
The truth is that "right to work" is just Republican code for the right to bust unions and give more power to employers. And the chart above shows what happens in states that adopt such laws. Workers in those states have lower wages, less benefits, and less job safety. In addition, those states have a higher rate of poverty, since companies are not made (by unions) to pay a fair and livable wage.
It is time for workers to wake up and realize that the only thing they have to sell is their labor, and the only protection they have to get a fair value for that labor is a union. That is just a fact. The Republicans are just showing once again that they don't care about workers. They only care about the rich and the corporations, and if abusing workers will put a few more dollars in corporate bank accounts, then Republicans will happily help the corporations do it.
Ted, this "right to work law," which I do not necessarily support, is not about employers at all. It simply says that if I work at a plant which has a union I don't join the union, and if I don't I don't have to pay their fees.
ReplyDeleteIt is a two headed hydra, admittedly. On one hand, what is noble about a "closed shop," wherein you cannot get a job unless you join a union? That merely gives the union greater power than the employer, but it doesn't give power to the worker himself.
Unions are not a good thing when they deny workers an opportunity to work, and that has often been the case when unions limited membership.
The issue of working in an open shop and not paying dues is another issue altogether. By default, the union negotiates for all employees, and the non-members benefit to the same degree that members do. They should pay the fee that represents the costs of that negotiation. They should not pay the portion of the fee that unions use for other purposes, such as political activism. This is what will wind up becoming law in these new "right to work" states.
California has had the open shop for many years, with non-union workers required to pay the portion of the union dues that represents bargaining costs, and it remains a highly unionized state. Employers have not been able to "bust the unions."
The requirement about not paying dues will be challenged in federal court and will be overturned, as has happened several times. The court does not allow workers to obtain the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for that process.