Need a Union?

"Right-to-work" supporters falsely claim that this anti-labor legislation protects workers who don’t want to join a union or who disagree with a union’s policies. However, federal labor law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union or make political contributions.

The so-called "right-to-work" law’s true purpose is to hurt the ability of unions to advocate for workers and serve as a check on corporate greed. Don't be fooled: "right-to-work" is a clever euphemism which, like a Trojan Horse, conceals a policy designed to weaken working people and further empower corporate interests.

Americans hold their rights sacred, but what rights matter more to the hard-working people of this country— the right to be a free rider who won't support or pay dues to the union that continues to represent them and their interests and who let others do all the work for them? Or the right to have a voice, fight injustice, earn a fair wage, and be treated with respect?

Across the country, workers are facing a barrage of legislative attacks on their rights to form unions and bargain collectively, including so-called "right-to-work" legislation. Anti-worker, anti-labor "right-to-work" laws allow workers in a shop covered by the benefits of a union contract to refuse to pay dues, letting union members alone carry the burden for them. In other words, some workers may now become free riders, refusing to help pay the expenses that the union incurs when protecting their rights and the rights of all employees, while still reaping all of the benefits... while they last.

Contrary to claims from its supporters, "right-to-work" offers no protection or economic benefits for workers. In fact, studies show that these deceptively titled laws actually drive down wages, benefits, and overall living standards for everyone. Furthermore, research reveals that "right-to-work" laws do not even create jobs or improve a state’s business climate, as many proponents claim.

The only purpose of these laws is to weaken the bargaining power of working people and keep wages as low as possible. Short of outlawing unions—which are protected under the Constitution—this is the next best thing to accomplishing that end.

These laws drive down wages for all workers, including non-union members, women, and people of color. Workers living in “right-to-work states earn about $1,500 less per year than workers in states without these laws. The wage penalty is even higher for women and workers of color.

www.epi.org/publication/bp299

‍

Workers in ”right-to-work” states are less likely to have health insurance. The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance for workers in “right-to-work” states is 2.6% lower than in states without these restrictions.

www.epi.org/publication/bp299

‍

”Right-to-work” makes workplaces more dangerous. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in right-to-workstates.

https://aflcio.org/reports/death-job-2012

”Right-to-work” laws do not improve business conditions in states.

www.bepress.com/rle/vol5/iss1/art25

‍

”Right-to-work” is not a deciding factor in where businesses locate.

www.areadevelopment.com/AnnualReports/jan2011/25th-annual-corporate-executive-survey48843.shtml

‍

High-tech companies that provide good-paying, American jobs favor states whereunions have a strong presence because unions provide a highly skilled workforceand decrease turnover.

www.itif.org/files/2010-state-new-economy-index.pdf

Communities lose jobs when wages are lowered by right-to-work. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every $1 million in wage cuts, the local economy sheds six jobs.

www.epi.org/publication/working-hard-indiana-bad-tortured-uphill

‍

“Right-to-work” does not improve the employment rate. In fact, eight of the 12states with the highest unemployment have right-to-work laws.

www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

‍

According to a report from Ohio University, these laws actually led to a decrease in employment in certain industries.

econpapers.repec.org/article/sejancoec/v_3a73_3a2_3ay_3a2006_3ap_3a402-418.htm

• Join a union.
• Attend a union meeting on your own time.
• Talk to a union organizer.
• Declare yourself a union supporter.
• Assist in forming a union.

• Threaten you with discharge or punishment if you engage in union activity.
• Threaten to shut down business if workers form a union.
• Prevent you from soliciting members during non-working hours.
• Question you about union matters, union meetings, or union supporters.
• Ask how you or other workers intend to vote in an election.
• Ask whether you belong to a union or have signed up to join a union.
• Transfer or assign you to a less desirable work assignment because of your union activity.
• Threaten to terminate your benefits because you unionize.
• Threaten a layoff or loss of jobs in retaliation for voting for a union.

If a union could teach only one thing to its members, it should be their “Weingarten rights”—the right of unionized workers to have a Shop Steward or someone else from the union present if they find themselves in situations where they might be disciplined.

Many workers crumble in the face of questioning by their supervisor or other management figure. They get rattled, start explaining, making excuses, apologizing, and often end up giving the employer ammunition to do whatever they want. They become like the suspects you see in police shows on television: they “fess up” to things that perhaps never even happened or say things in such a way that they worsen the problem rather than help resolve the issue.

With few exceptions, workers across North America enjoy the legal right to have a Shop Steward or other union representative present if they find themselves in any situation with management—a conversation, a discussion, an interrogation—that could lead to disciplinary action. For private sector and federal government workers in the U.S., this protection is called Weingarten Rights, named after a 1975 Supreme Court decision. Most state workers and workers throughout Canada enjoy pretty much the same guarantees.

But unlike Miranda rights, which police are supposed to inform criminal suspects about their rights, employers do not have to tell employees about their Weingarten rights. Workers must ask for them.

The rights do not extend to meetings where no questioning is involved, such as when one-way communication from the supervisor to the worker occurs. Weingarten also does not extend to a discussion about job performance without a threat of discipline.

At the same time, workers do have the right to call Weingarten rights into play if they have any reasonable expectation that a disciplinary action may result from the meeting. The key word here is “may.”

If there is the slightest concern that the session could bring about discipline, the worker has the right to ask for union help even though the supervisor may not be intending to take such action. For example, if other workers have been disciplined for similar alleged situations, the worker being called in has had a previous discussion with the supervisor about discipline, or the worker is working under the threat of a performance warning letter, any of these situations can cause a worker to think that discipline may be an outcome of the meeting.

• The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The worker cannot be punished for making such 
a request.
• The employer must either grant the request and delay questioning until the union person arrives, deny the request but end the interview at once, or give the worker the choice of going ahead without representation or ending the interview immediately.
• An employer who denies the worker’s request for representation and continues to ask questions is committing an unfair labor practice. The worker can legally refuse to answer questions in such circumstances.

• Once the Shop Steward arrives, the supervisor must inform them about the subject matter of the interview and the type of misconduct 
under discussion.
• The Shop Steward and the worker should be allowed to talk privately before the questioning begins.
• The Shop Steward can speak during the interview and, if necessary, ask that questions be clarified. The Shop Steward cannot bargain over the purpose of the interview.
• The Shop Steward can advise the worker on how to answer any or all questions or object to improper questioning, and the Shop Steward has the right, once the questioning is ended, to provide additional information. The Shop Steward cannot tell workers not to answer questions or to give false answers.