Generally, the “right to work” policy is defined as a regulation allowing employees to join labor unions at will. It is not mandatory for an employee to join any union as a condition to get or hold a particular job. Unions are created to negotiate with employers on issues such as pays, preeminence, working conditions, welfares, and benefits related to work (Vargas 164).
In most cases, employers do not become part of the union. This policy makes it unlawful for employees and employers to negotiate an agreement demanding everybody (benefiting from a union agreement) to pay any charges for administration. However, this policy does not force any individual to be part of the union.
Currently, the federal law already provides an assurance that no individual should be obliged to join any union, or to pay any charges or subscriptions to a political or social organizations they do not advocate for. Actually, right to work policy lets some employees to get the benefits of a union agreement such as fortification against haphazard discipline, higher salaries and other compensation benefits without having to pay any charges related to negotiation on these issues.
There continues to be lots of debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the policy. In this research paper, both the major arguments for and against the use of this policy is presented. In addition, an honest opinion about right to work policy is also described at the end of the paper.
Right to work policy implies that an employee cannot get dismissed from his or her job for failure to pay union charges or agency fees even if they continue to enjoy the benefits of the union’s aptitude to collective bargaining. The proponents of this policy cite several advantages. First, right to work policy provides more in-state job opportunities for younger employees.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, between 2000 and 2011, there has been a growth of approximately 11.3% in the number of individuals, whose ages range between 25 to 34 years (staying in the states) that have adopted right to work policy. Conversely, states that have not embraced this policy reported an increase of only 0.6 % over the same period. This indicates that younger employees are settling in these states because they find more opportunities there than in non-right to work states.
This could be attributed by several advantages that this policy offers to an employer. For instance, a right to work policy offers an increased suppleness to institute wages as well as compensation levels since the corporation is not mandated to use the compensation levels as fixed in a collective bargaining contract. This implies that employers have freedom of managing their company without any external interference thereby increasing the opportunities for business activities (Holley 53)
Another advantage of right to work policy is that there is an increase in wages. The data obtained from Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that inflation-attuned worker compensation of the private sector in states that have adopted right to work policy increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011.
However, over the same period there was only an increase of 3% in the non-right to work states. This is because right to work policy does not require any assets, on the part of employer, devoted labor negotiations or issues like obligatory disciplinary procedures. Besides, the fact that workers are not forced to pay part of their income to union implies that their remuneration is increased by the margin they should have paid to the union.
This provides employees with freedom of spending their hard earned cash and improves their overall living standards. Greater employment opportunities and employment fortifications regulated by the state laws results into low unemployment. Actually, according to national Institute for labor relations research, there was an employment increase of 3.7% in right to work states between 1999 and 2009 while a decline of 2.8% was experienced in non-right to work states.
In overall, right to work states accounted for 72% of employment growth in the United States from 2009 to 2012. Other advantages of right to work policy include conservation of workers choices and employees have freedom of deciding their own representation (Gall 43).
However, some labor activists argue that the policy derails the unions, hurt workers, destabilizes the middle class, and impedes the growth of local economies. According to them, this policy does not create jobs in spite of the proponent’s claim to the opposite. For example, unionization escalates the labor costs hence making some regions less attractive for investments.
This implies that the major objective of the right to work policy is to weaken unions and consequently lower pays in a state, therefore drawing more corporations there. However, what it does is hurting employees by reducing their pays and benefits and thus making workplaces more precarious for all employees regardless of whether they are unionized or not by waning unions.
Unions play vital roles in negotiating not only better terms of work but also working conditions. Generally, unionized workers have the capacity to bargain better salaries, welfares and work conditions as compared to individual bargaining. Without unions, employees will not have a strong collective bargaining power and thus companies will not offer better working terms and conditions for their workers (Vanti 18).
Contextually, this policy also derails the prosperity of the middle class in diverse contexts. Unions provide well-built middle class by negotiating for viable compensations/benefits, heartening residents to vote, supporting social security, and advancing family-leave welfares. This provides workers with a ‘voice’ in only in their democracy but also in the labor market. In right to work states, where most employees are not unionized, there are relatively weak middle class.
The ratio of income apportioned to the middle class, defined as middle 60% of the total population, in these states falls lower than the domestic average. Additionally, right to work policy also affects small companies. Since few trivial companies are ever unionized, altering union conventions will not affect them. When right to work lower salaries and benefits of employees from these regions, they also loom to decrease the number of employments in the economy by declining consumer demand (Paz-Fuchs 64).
In analyzing these arguments, even though right to work policy could seem to have advantages, there is no strong relation of how it creates employment and improves the welfare of employees. Instead, right to work policy weakens unions that push for better terms and work conditions of employees.
In overall, the consequence of this weakens the middle class and economy in the long run. Accordingly, it is vital to agree that these policies will create job opportunities and fortify local economies. This policy is against the democracy and rights of employees.
Works Cited
Gall, Gilbert. The Politics of Right to Work: The Labor Federations as Special Interests, 1943-1979. New York, NY: Greenwood Press, 1988. Print.
Holley, William. The Labor Relations Process. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Paz-Fuchs, Amir. Welfare to Work: Conditional Rights in Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008. Print.
Vanti, Aerschot. Activation Policies and the Protection of Individual Rights: A Critical Assessment of the Situation in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Print.
Vargas, Ines. The Right to Work and the Situation of Workers. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, 1985. Print.