lawyer

"Right-to-work" laws are derived from legislation forbidding unions from forcing strikes on workers, as well as on legal principles such as "liberty of contract," which as applied here sought to prevent passage of laws regulating workplace conditions. [2]

Strictly speaking, right-to-work laws exist only in the United States. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1949, which banned "closed shops" where workers must be members of the union that represents them, also gave states the option to ban "agency shops," where workers do not have to be members but must pay a "fair share" fee to the union to cover the cost of representing them.

Right-to-work laws exist mostly in red states. The exact number of states with right-to-work laws vary depending on who's counting. According to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states and the U.S. territory of Guam have adopted right-to-work laws. [3] The first to adopt such laws was Florida in 1943.

States that adopt this policy tend to have lower average wages, and higher poverty rates. In addition they often have fewer benefits. [4]

As many countries, including the United States, have legislated bans on so called "yellow-dog contracts" (contracts that workers must sign, as a condition of employment, prohibiting the worker from joining a union), right-to-work laws are considered by some proponents to create a "balance" by banning agency shops. In other words, if the law gives workers the right to force their employer to finance a union through their paycheck, it seems only fair that it should also give them the right not to do this.

This, however, is an instance of the balance fallacy. as it does not take into account that it is much easier for an employer to force a yellow-dog contract on a worker than it is for the worker to force union recognition on an employer.

Though they do not prohibit any worker from joining an existing union or any workforce from unionizing by secret-ballot election in accordance with state and federal labor laws, a common criticism of these laws is that their ultimate purpose is to strip unions of their bargaining power by removing their ability to operate as a collective representation of their entire workforce.

There is also the issue of the unions' political power. The openly stated motivation for many right-to-work laws is to stop workers being forced to subsidize unions' political contributions, whether through union dues or "fair share" payments. If unions disproportionately support a particular party (e.g.. the U.S.'s Democratic Party ), that creates an incentive for other parties to bring in right-to-work laws by way of socking their opponents in the pocketbook.

The main organizations supporting right-to-work are the National Right to Work Committee, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The former is a conservative lobbying group, while the latter defends right-to-work laws in court; both are funded through donations. [5]

The United Nations (UN) does actually recognize something called the "right to work." The U.N.'s definition is much less Orwellian and actually has to do with the right to have a job, as part of Article 23 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :

“ ” Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [6]

Note also that part of the same article of said Declaration also says, "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests", which makes it in effect a pro-union document, the opposite effect of "right-to-work" laws (though not in direct contradiction thereto).

This right is also recognised in the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its article 6 paragraph 1: