3 ms·

"Right to work" undermines collective bargaining -- which itself is an attempt to redress the structural imbalance of employer-employee negotiations -- by intro

by HillRat 12y ago

"Right to work" undermines collective bargaining -- which itself is an attempt to redress the structural imbalance of employer-employee negotiations -- by introducing free-rider incentives to employees. In short, it's an end-run around Wagner Act protections by preventing unions from mandating "union shop" or "agency shop" conditions of employment, in which employees must either join the union (in a union shop, which is uncommon) or must contribute union dues but do not have to be members of the union (in an agency shop, which is the most common arrangement). So-called "closed shops," in which union membership was a precondition of employment, have been illegal since Taft-Hartley. The obvious intent here by employers is to create an incentive for employees to "free ride" by enjoying the fruits of union negotiations without having to contribute dues or participate in union actions. More generally, right to work laws are part of larger parcels of anti-union legislation such as WI's Act 10 (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/10.pdf https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/10.pdf), which basically forces unions to hold expensive elections each year in order to continue their existence, resulting in about 50% of the public sector unions in the state folding due to either an inability to afford elections or by failing the electoral test. When coupled with aggressive "union busting" tactics by law firms and security companies, state lawmakers have been extremely successful at helping companies shut down labor organization in many jurisdictions. (Parenthetically, Governor Walker specifically exempted police and fire unions, and there is some evidence that those public-safety unions that endorsed him have had significant success in negotiating pay raises; although state workers have seen on average a greater than 10% reduction in take-home pay, the Walker-supporting Wisconsin Troopers Association negotiated a 17% pay increase.)

ptaipale 12y ago
Genuine question: how is it possible that a union couldn't arrange an election once a year? Over here they can do it, and routinely do it annually or bi-annually (mine does bi-annual).
- makomk 12y ago
  That's a good question. The law in question looks nasty: it requires them to hold an election annually, and if they don't get 51% of the votes of all employees "affected general municipal employees may not be included in a substantially similar collective bargaining unit for 12 months from the date of decertification". However, the vote is effectively only binding in one direction: even if they do get 51% of the vote, when it comes time to negotiate the employer can claim they don't represent the employees and refuse to negotiate with them until they hold another election to prove they do. So I can't find any provision that makes it expensive to hold elections, but it does seem to be basically pointless since they've rendered unions so ineffective. Even if they do manage to jump through all the hoops the only thing public sector unions are allowed to bargain over is base wages, not overtime pay, benefits like health insurance, working conditions, or anything else.

by HillRat 12y ago

ptaipale 12y ago

Genuine question: how is it possible that a union couldn't arrange an election once a year? Over here they can do it, and routinely do it annually or bi-annually (mine does bi-annual).

makomk 12y ago
That's a good question. The law in question looks nasty: it requires them to hold an election annually, and if they don't get 51% of the votes of all employees "affected general municipal employees may not be included in a substantially similar collective bargaining unit for 12 months from the date of decertification". However, the vote is effectively only binding in one direction: even if they do get 51% of the vote, when it comes time to negotiate the employer can claim they don't represent the employees and refuse to negotiate with them until they hold another election to prove they do. So I can't find any provision that makes it expensive to hold elections, but it does seem to be basically pointless since they've rendered unions so ineffective. Even if they do manage to jump through all the hoops the only thing public sector unions are allowed to bargain over is base wages, not overtime pay, benefits like health insurance, working conditions, or anything else.