Simplifying Right-To-Work Laws in the United States

Whether it be Starbucks employees, rail workers, or nurses, labor unions in the US have had a significant impact on the economy, particularly in recent years. In response, 28 states have adopted right-to-work laws, which allow employees to be entitled to work without having to be in a union as a prerequisite. 

Before the New Deal, organized labor faced challenges, constrained by laws like the Interstate Commerce Clause that limited strike actions. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 permitted closed shops, requiring all employees to be represented by unions, funded through dues deducted from their paychecks. In 1947, with the Taft-Hartley Act, states gained the right to opt out of closed shops, ultimately leading to the implementation of right-to-work laws in 28 out of 50 states, allowing employees the choice not to join unions. 

Because they make membership optional, RTW laws significantly weaken the bargaining power of unions. That is, strikes aren’t as threatening if a portion of the workforce remains. 

As such, the growing contention over these laws essentially boils down into a question of whether or not the individual benefits of unionization outweigh the broader economic harms.

Those against RTW argue that unionization is an essential aspect of middle-class employment; unions provide healthcare benefits, pension funds, and increased wages. Moreover, a Harvard Study found that labor unions serve as a springboard for political participation and the strengthening of democracy. They tend to engage in lobbying efforts, endorse supportive candidates, and educate members about political issues.

There is, however, an argument to be made about the broader economic harms of unionization. Through collective bargaining, union workers feel a sense of security that results in higher wages and lower productivity in comparison to their nonunionized counterparts. Through strikes, unions can increase both production and operating costs for companies and create inflationary downstream effects that harm consumers nationwide.

While both sides of the debate on unionization have their own flaws, RTW laws are not that simple. Flaws in modern unions exist; in recent years, many unions have been plagued by corruption as thousands of labor leaders have been convicted of embezzlement. Furthermore, many unions have become ineffective organizationally and culturally as they face challenges in the viability of their leadership structures. That said, there is an argument to be made that RTW laws can force unions to be more accountable; the laws give workers the ability to take action and even leave a union if they do not feel satisfied. Empirically, in Oklahoma, the passing of the law led unions to spend more money on organizing movements, rather than sitting complacently. 

Indiana, too, witnessed a 24% increase in union membership following the adoption of the law. It doesn’t end there – the University of Oklahoma found that wages were 6.68 percentage points higher in right-to-work states than in non-right-to-work states. 

While there may be isolated instances where right-to-work (RTW) laws appear to benefit unions, advocates of organized labor argue that these are often exceptional cases. Still, it's important to realize that the results of RTW legislation are specific to the economic context of the state and aid or hinder regional organized labor.