Right to Work is Wrong

Oct 16, 2017 | MNPL

Airline workers may need to study up on “Right to Work” laws, which have been helping big business defund unions for years. Important politicians are trying to extend Right to Work rules into all unions and employee groups. This may soon include airline and railroad workers, who have largely been spared until now.

Simply put, if you are paid an hourly rate, “Right to Work” laws will hurt you, and leave you with fewer rights at work.

How will “Right to Work” laws affect Employees and Employee Groups?

When it comes to unions, “Right to Work” laws unfairly (and severely) discriminate against employees that try to negotiate as a group with their employers by reducing their funding through dues. Employee groups do not have access to billions of dollars in corporate profits, and must pool their money together in order to compete. This is what “dues” are; contributions from everyone, collected for the common good.

When unions begin to evaporate, wages collapse throughout the economy, and all workers suffer.

Unions help support wage growth, even for nonunion workers, by raising prevailing pay standards and creating upwards competition between businesses trying to attract talent. Without unions, the power balance tips to the employers and away from employees, allowing bosses to lower wages, benefits and standards.

How do “Right to Work” Laws Defund Unions?

“Right to Work” laws harm workers by forcing labor unions and employee groups to provide services to nonmembers without compensation. Over time, this will eventually starve unions of the money they need to operate at all. Supporters claim that “Right to Work” is needed in order to give people that do not want to work in a unionized workplace the option to work there anyway, but without having to be a part of the union or pay dues. However, the laws still require unions to provide all the services that they perform for dues-paying members to the non-members, as well.

Non-members will still collect the pay raises and benefits that the union negotiates, and they will still receive the job protections and workplace rules that are enforced though union grievance procedures… all of which is funded by dues payments. “Right to Work” makes paying for these services voluntary.

No business or organization would survive for long if it were forced to deliver products to nonpaying consumers. By forcing labor unions to perform work without compensation, “Right to Work” Laws obviously exist to drive unions out of business. The goal isn’t to protect the right of employees to work (that’s what unions do – if they can fund themselves), they exist in order to prevent employees from working together when they negotiate with their boss.

Do Other Organizations Have Similar Rules?

It’s hard to imagine how other organizations would respond to equivalent laws. Country Clubs, Homeowner Associations or private Health Care facilities that were forced to provide services without being paid would quickly go out of business. “Right to Work” backers understand this, which is why they are spending so much to fund their anti-union efforts at the Federal level. Since “Right to Work” laws are specifically designed to destroy unions, they are only applied to employee groups. Other organizations that require membership fees or dues, such as cable companies or country clubs, are not affected.

But, shouldn’t people have a right to work in a unionized workplace without joining the union that represents those workers?

Job applicants that do not want to work in a unionized workplace will find an abundance of non-union jobs to choose from. Fewer and fewer employees in the United States belong to a union; it is very easy to find a nonunion workplace in America.

The goal of “Right to Work” is to force unions out of business, and force employees to negotiate on an “individual employee vs the Company” basis, which favors the company and places employees at a disadvantage.

Does “Right to Work” help create more jobs? Are “Right to Work” employees paid more?

There is no evidence that “Right to Work” increases hiring rates. Hiring new workers is not something that businesses do except as a last resort. And, if “Right to Work” laws actually contributed to higher wages, the only businesses that supported them would be the companies that already want to pay their employees more. And, these companies can give their workers a raise without “Right to Work.”

If “Right to Work” laws really created higher wages, companies would not support them. The fact is that work is better protected with a more equal power balance between workers and Company Bosses.

Will “Right to Work” Last?

“Right to Work” is likely to spread into the airline and railroad industries, but there are some indications that Right to Work will not hold up well if it is forced to withstand court challenges, or if it is applied to other organizations outside of organized labor. Can hospitals be forced to provide health care to non-paying consumers? Can private institutions, such as universities and country clubs be forced to accommodate non-members that do not provide financial support in return? “Right to Work” requirements that private organization should be forced to provide services to nonpaying consumers may be found unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the current make-up of the US Supreme Court is also very likely to make “Right to Work” discrimination a constitutionally-protected practice. It will take generations to unravel the damage to employees that will result from anti-worker decisions at the high court.

But, in the meantime, airline and railroad employees need to study up on “Right to Work,” and the harmful effects that it is likely to have on their paychecks and job security.

IAM and Canada: “NEW NAFTA” HAS NO PLACE FOR ‘RIGHT TO WORK’ DISCRIMINATION

Oct 16, 2017 | MNPL

Since the early 90’s, American workers have complained that NAFTA unfairly forces them to compete with cheap Mexican labor. Weak unions, low wages, and lax regulations south of the border have lured a steady stream of businesses away from American workers.

This erosion of jobs and wages has caused a majority of Americans to feel that NAFTA is bad for the country, according to a recent Gallup poll. (Gallup Poll, Feb 2017) (http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx)

Now, with the possibility that NAFTA may be renegotiated, it seems that Canadians feel the same way about their Southern partners as Americans do.

They are increasingly angry about being forced to compete with foreign workers who are underpaid, non-union and who have weak workplace protections.

However, there is one significant difference between the complaints from Canadians and those coming from Americans: the low-wage foreign workers that Canadians feel NAFTA unfairly forces their nation to compete with aren’t Mexican.

They are poorly paid Americans.

To protect living standards in their nation, NAFTA negotiators in Canada are demanding that the United States eliminate discriminatory “Right to Work” laws, among other reforms. Canada argues that such anti-worker statutes amount to unfair market manipulation on the part of the US, as underpaid American workers undercut Canadian wages.

“Right to Work” laws discriminate against Americans by defunding labor unions and employee groups that band together to negotiate with managers. “Right to Work” defunds workers and unions by forcing them to provide goods and services to consumers without payment. To compete with billion-dollar corporations, workers must pool their money together as dues contributions. “Right to Work” statutes make dues payments voluntary, but would still require unions to pay for expensive arbitrations and negotiations – costs that can quickly run into the millions of dollars.

‘Right to Work’ supporters argue that the laws help improve the American economy by lowering wages and weakening labor unions in the US… which, they say, helps business owners compete.

However, the jobs that arrive in the US from Canada are low-wage and often temporary – the type of jobs that provide no path out of poverty for American workers. Ending ‘Right to Work’ as part of any NAFTA renegotiation, on the other hand, would strengthen American workers’ ability to negotiate better wages. Better wages, in turn, help support stronger communities and more robust consumerism.

The IAM, which has a significant and growing presence in Canada, has hailed the demands to end “Right to Work” discrimination in the United States.

In a recent interview on Activate! Live, Owen Herrnstadt (the Chief of Staff to IAM International President Bob Martinez), did not mince words.

“This supports and vindicates what we’ve been fighting for all along,” said Herrnstadt, “which is that ‘Right to Work’ is nothing more than ‘Right to Work For Less.’”

He called on IAM members in the United States to take action in support of the Canadian effort. “Our members can help in a variety of ways. First of all, the negotiations are continuing, so there’s still time for our members in the US and Canada to reach out to their negotiators (For the US it’s the United States Trade Representative’s Office, USTR.gov.), and let them know that we need strong labor rights.”

“They can also contact their Congress-People, and their Senators immediately. To say that we just don’t want a renegotiated NAFTA that only tweaks around the edges. It needs to be a dramatic change that puts workers first and foremost in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.”

Activate! Live is the Machinists Union’s new weekly webcast, live from IAM headquarters in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. It is available on YouTube – Search for “Activate! Live.” The full interview with Owen Herrnstadt can be found here. 

Owen E. Herrnstadt serves as Director for the IAM’s Department of Trade and Globalization, as well as Chief of Staff to the International President. He has served on the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, among many other posts.