Introduction
Debates on the rights to work laws have been intensifying each day especially now that competition in the business world is increasing drastically. The topic of rights to work laws I, therefore, very significant in many organizations in the globe. This is because the laws define the rights of all employees and offers security for contracts for employers who are members of work unions (Taubman, and Alston, 2010, p 1).
Global organizations are much concerned about these laws because they define powers of business unions whereby the right to work laws are now prohibiting the unions from taking certain measures towards the companies involved, which would result to mandatory membership of all employees as well as payments of union dues by the employees. Some people support the laws while others oppose them.
However, these laws should be made based on their benefits to the state in question as well as its people (both employees and employers). It is therefore important for organizations to be aware of these laws to avoid exploitation of their employees by the unions as well as to learn on the benefits of joining the unions to enable them make wise decisions to the benefit of their businesses (Niznik, 2011, p 1).
How unions survive in Right to Work states
Since much legislation on rights to work laws is opposing work unions, the unions have developed several strategies to help them survive the opposition.
For instance, many unions are now encouraging the use of new and improved technologies aimed at improving production. This move has attracted many employers to join the unions in order to benefit from the advancements in productivity technology. They are also providing other services such as coordination of labor management and improved training for employees of member employers.
Through the guaranteed increase in wages, many employees are willing to join the unions despite the laws imposed on the unions. In order for unions to maintain their members in rights to work states, they are improving the units of bargaining which keeps the nonunionized employers at greater risks of competition due to the low wages they offer and also lack of job benefits to their employees.
As a result, many firms choose to remain as union members despite their rights not to do so. For instance, the construction firms have more to benefit from by maintaining their membership due to better and much quality work resulting from the increased and improved training of employees (Cooper, 2004, p. 1).
Similarly, fewer injuries are experienced in such companies and this attracts many such firms to join or maintain their membership in the unions.
Due to the higher wages guaranteed on union members, community members are likely to have more to spend and this is beneficial to the companies and other employers in that their sales and services will increase due to the increased income of the employees which leads to subsequent increase in expenditure by society members. This encourages companies to join and maintain their membership to the unions in order to promote rise in sales.
Since the rights to work laws do not limit the management powers of companies, unions in right to work states take the initiative to provide management services to members and this attracts many companies to join the unions. The unions and the member companies therefore agree on the terms and conditions of those services. This way, the unions gain benefits from the fees they obtain from the members for the services offered (Considine, 2011, p. 1).
Rights for union employees and differences in collective bargaining agreement in right t work and non right to work states
Union employees in both right to work and non right to work states, enjoy certain benefits. For instance, unions require their member companies to give priority to union employees when giving job opportunities. Non union employees may therefore miss a job opportunity especially where there are other union employees pursuing the same position.
However, employees from non union companies (right to work laws states), gain some benefits as well. The law requires that the workers get the benefits of the company membership. All eligible employees are, therefore, entitled to representation by the unions whether they pay the union dues or not.
The unions are therefore required to use their own member’s dues to pay union benefits even to those who are not willing to pay off their dues. The unions however, tend to represent collective bargaining based on arguments that everyone is entitled to freedom to speech, assembly and press. Collective bargaining gives the unions the chance to express their views with regard to job benefits, improvements of working conditions and better wages for member employees (Denholm, 2011, p. 1).
Employees in unionized companies in the rights to work states have the right to choose either to join or refrain from joining the union. This is opposed to workers in non rights to work states where all employees of unionized workplaces are forced to join the unions or pay the union dues prior to employment. Rights to work states have laws which give employees the right to refrain from joining the unions even when their employers are members.
Workers also have the rights to end their membership from the union at any given time without having to pay any post union fines or facing any disciplinary measures. Therefore, in the right to work states, employees do not need to pay any union dues to get employed while in the non right to work states, employers may require, by law, the worker to pay a reduced amount of the fees to support the union (Niznik, 2011, p 1).
However, in the non right to work states, the union does not require formal membership of workers despite the agreements of collective bargaining. This agreement defines the distinction between volunteer membership in a company and the payment of financial dues without having to join the union membership. The voluntary members of the union are subject to fines and other internal agreements such as discipline while financial due payers are not.
These payers are not part of the union members but are members of the bargaining unit which is completely covered by the union based on the bargaining agreements including salary and other benefits such as pension payments. Despite members of the bargaining agreement being excluded from internal participation of the union, they are fairly represented as well as bearing immunity from disciplinary measures and other fines (Barro, 2011, p. 1).
Differences in employees in right to work and non right to work states
Although both opponents and proponents of the right to work laws have exactly opposing views and arguments on the work laws, there are actual differences experienced between the two. Employees in the non right to work states, whose unions are stronger due to lack of restrictions, enjoy some benefits that their counter parts. For instance, compensation programs for workers in case of injuries as well insurance agreements are much friendlier and generous in states that have not yet implemented the work laws.
Such employees’ families especially their children are less likely to suffer from poverty and are guaranteed of living a quality standard of life compared to those in right to work states that are poorly paid leading to low income among community members and consequently poor living standards. The unions in the non rights work states have pushed for health insurance services from all employers including the small ones.
High income rates for employees give them opportunities to educate their children something which guarantees a bright future for the children. Immortality rates are equally lower in such states compared to those which have already implemented the laws opposing the work unions. This clearly shows that workers in the non rights to work states have much better lives than their counter parts in the rights to work states (Denholm, 2011, p. 1).
On the other hand, employees in anti union states are more likely to suffer intimidation by their employers because after all they have no body through which they can air their views concerning their jobs.
Since employers in such states are not under any pressure, they tend to pay low wages to their employees, fail to provide important services such as medical covers and do not pay much attention to working conditions their workers are exposed to. As a result, employees earn low income, they are likely not able to live a standard life as opposed to those in states where the laws have not been implemented.
Similarly, unemployment rates are higher in right to work states since workers do not have guarantee for employment unlike in non right to work states where the union members are always prioritized during recruitments. Employment opportunities are therefore high in these states and as a result living standards of communities are improved. Additionally, unions may intervene between employers and workers in case any problem arises. This way, loss of jobs by union members is prevented (Taubman, and Alston, 2010, p 1).
Importance of understanding the Right to Work laws
It is very important for both employees and employers to understand the basics of the Right to Work laws, whether they are in the Right to Work states or in the non-Right to Work states. The workers should clearly understand their rights in the unions whether they have joined the membership or they are part of the collective bargaining agreement.
Proper understanding of these laws and employees rights will put them in a better position to decide whether to join the unions’ membership or not. Similarly, employers need to understand their duties as well especially their required responsibilities in regard to the unions. The employees also need to be fully informed on the benefits associated with union membership especially provision of job opportunities.
Employees need to be aware of their rights involved in payments of union dues to avoid being exploited without their knowledge as it has been the case for many workers. It is also important for state governments to consider the good side of the unions before abolishing them completely so that they can be able to put into place, appropriate laws for the benefit of employees, employers as well as the unions (Cooper, 2004, p. 1).
Conclusion
Right to Work laws have been implemented in many countries over the years. However, many have opposed the laws and others have supported them. The opponents of the laws are supporters of the unions arguing that the existence of the unions has resulted to increased wages to its members, high living standards of the society as a whole as well as enjoyment of other benefits.
However, the proponents of the law oppose the unions with exactly the opposite views on the unions as their counter parts. According to the proponents of the law, unions have led to low wages to its members, reduced job opportunities and low living standards among the union members. Most of these unions have been, for a very long time, exploiting their members by requiring them to pay mandatory union dues in order to get themselves a job.
Others have forced workers to join the union membership against their will so that the union can benefit from the dues from the members. However, the Right to Work laws requires that no employee should be forced to either join the union or pay mandatory dues. The laws also give the employees the right to choose between joining the union membership and remaining as part of collective bargaining agreement which does not involve internal participation of the members in the union affairs.
Reference List
Barro, R. (2011). Unions vs. the Right to Work. Web.
Considine, A. (2011). ‘Right to Work’: GOP aims to gut labor unions. Web.
Cooper, J. W. (2004). Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses. Web.
Denholm, D. (2011). There is no “Right” to Collective Bargaining. Web.
Niznik, J. S. (2011). Right to Work. Web.
Taubman, G. and Alston, R. (2010). Union Discipline and Employee Rights. Web.