Right-to-work laws

Voting on Labor and Unions
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local labor and unions Local project labor agreements Local pensions

Right-to-work is a term describing state legislation that prohibits employees from being required to join or financially support a labor union.

On this page you will find:

• Arguments for and against right-to-work laws
• An overview of state right-to-work laws
• An overview of relevant federal law
• Historical trends

Arguments

Support

• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation: "Right to Work states enjoy a higher standard of living than do non-Right to Work states. Families in Right to Work states, on average, have greater after-tax income and purchasing power than do those families living in non-Right to Work states, independent studies reveal. What’s more, Right to Work states have greater economic vitality, official Department of Labor statistics show, with faster growth in manufacturing and nonagricultural jobs, lower unemployment rates and fewer work stoppages."

• The Heritage Foundation: "Right-to-work laws protect workers freedom. In the absence of [right-to-work] unions force workers to purchase their representation—whether or not they see any benefit from it. ... Such compulsory dues allow unions to take workers for granted. They collect dues no matter how well they represent them. ...Research confirms that unions pay more attention to their members in right-to-work states."

• Illinois Policy: "Right-to-Work states outperform forced-unionization states in job creation and income growth across the U.S. ... Job creation in industrial sectors such as manufacturing especially improves under Right-to-Work laws."

Opposition

• AFL-CIO: "'Right to work' is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union. The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union. The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions."

• AFSCME: "So called right-to-work laws allow workers – 'free riders' – to receive the benefits of a union contract without paying the cost necessary to secure those benefits[.] ... Contrary to claims made by proponents of so-called right-to-work laws, academic research shows that such laws have no impact on economic growth, no influence on employment and are correlated with a decrease in wages[.] ... Unions generate greater political participation of citizens and ultimately an effective voice for workers and the middle class and a stronger democracy. Weakened unions are less able to advocate for policies important to working families and campaign for those politicians who support them[.]"

• Jobs with Justice: "Right-to-work laws make it optional for workers protected by a union contract to help pay for the expenses that the union incurs while guaranteeing the rights of all employees. Why is that a big deal? By limiting unions’ resources and weakening the ability of workers to have a say about their jobs, these laws drive down everyone’s wages, benefits, and overall living standards."

State laws

As of February 2024, 26 states had right-to-work laws in place (see the map below). The majority of right-to-work laws were passed by states in the 1940s and 1950s.

1940-1949

Arkansas and Florida were the first states to pass right-to-work laws, when voters approved related constitutional amendments in 1944. Arizona and Nebraska followed suit in 1946, with two more constitutional amendments approved by voters. In 1947, seven states approved right-to-work laws (Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Texas and South Dakota) and all but one were put into place by state statute; in South Dakota voters approved a constitutional amendment. North Dakota rounded out the decade, passing a statute in 1948.

1950-1959

In the 1950s, half as many right-to-work laws were passed compared to the prior decade. Nevada voters approved a statute in 1952, followed by statutes in Alabama (1953), Mississippi (1954), South Carolina (1954) and Utah (1955). A constitutional amendment was approved in Kansas in 1958.

1960-1999

Four new laws passed between 1960 and 1999. Mississippi passed a constitutional amendment after having passed a statute in 1954. Wyoming, Louisiana and Idaho passed statutes in 1963, 1976 and 1985, respectively.

2000-2019

Between 2000 and 2019, six states adopted right-to-work laws. In 2001, Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment. In 2012, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana signed right-to-work legislation after it passed the state senate. Later that year, the Michigan State Legislature and Gov. Rick Snyder passed and signed right-to-work legislation that went into effect early in 2013. Right-to-work legislation was later signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin in March 2015.

In February 2016, West Virginia passed a right-to-work law that was challenged in court. In November 2016, Alabama passed a constitutional right-to-work amendment. In January 2017, Kentucky passed a similar law after Republicans gained a trifecta, holding majorities in both chambers of the legislature and holding the governorship. In February 2017, Missouri passed a right-to-work law scheduled to take effect in August 2017. The law was held in abeyance pending a veto referendum. On November 22, 2017, the veto referendum was certified for the ballot, meaning it was put on hold pending the outcome of the veto referendum election on August 7, 2018. Voters rejected the referendum, thus repealing the right-to-work law. Missouri became the first state to repeal a right-to-work law through a ballot measure.

2020-Present

On March 24, 2023, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed Senate Bill 34, a bill repealing the state's 2012 right-to-work law. The repeal took effect on February 13, 2024.

Federal laws

Wagner Act

The National Labor Relations Act, more commonly known as the Wagner Act, is a federal piece of labor legislation that was sponsored by Robert F. Wagner, a Democratic senator from New York, and was introduced to the Senate in February 1935. The purpose of the act was two-fold. The first objective was to protect the right of employees to participate in labor organizations, collective bargaining and activities related to mutual aid and protection of employees. Second, the act created the National Labor Relations Board. The bill was passed by the Senate in May 1935 and by the House in June and was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt on July 5, 1935.

National Labor Relations Board seal

National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which still exists, originally comprised three members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The NLRB was designed to decide, upon employee petition, if an appropriate bargaining unit of employees exists for collective bargaining, for conducting secret-ballot elections and determining whether employees in a business or industry want to be represented by a union, and for preventing or remedying unfair labor practices by employers or unions. The NLRB also hears and resolves labor disputes, investigates and prosecutes complaints, and oversees cases in NLRB field offices. The board has no independent power and relies on U.S. courts of appeal to enforce its decisions. In addition, all cases, charges and petitions for representation must be initiated by employers, individuals or unions. The membership of the NLRB has increased to five members, who are still appointed by the president and are assisted by 33 regional directors.

Supreme Court case

In 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. The NLRB had found that Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. was engaging in unfair labor practices by firing employees involved in union activity and ordered Jones & Laughlin to cease its discriminatory practices. The company refused to comply with the order, claiming the actions of the NLRB were unconstitutional because the steel plants were manufacturing plants and did not participate in interstate commerce. A court of appeals ruled in favor of Jones & Laughlin, a decision subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against the court of appeals, stating that the steel corporation did significant business outside the state of Pennsylvania and was therefore subject to regulation of interstate commerce by Congress and the NLRB.

Taft-Hartley Act

The Taft-Hartley Act, also known as the Labor–Management Relations Act, amended several aspects of the Wagner Act. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Rep. Fred A. Hartley of New Jersey, and it was passed in spite of a veto by President Harry S. Truman. Since passage of the Wagner Act, the U.S. experienced major growth in union membership, several large strikes and a fear of Communist infiltration of labor unions. These factors helped create an increasingly anti-union environment and led both Republican-controlled houses of Congress to make changes in the labor laws.

The Taft-Hartley Act guaranteed the right of employees to not join unions as a condition of employment by outlawing "closed shop" agreements, permitted union shops only where allowed by state law and where a majority of workers voted for them, required a 60-day advance notice of a strike, narrowed and specified unfair union practices, restricted political contributions made by unions and required union officers to swear an oath denying Communist affiliations. However, the bill also allowed employers to sign a union shop agreement that could require employees to join a union on, or after, the 30th day of employment.

The act also prohibited secondary boycotts by making it illegal for a union with an employer dispute to pressure another employer to stop doing business with the first employer. The law prohibited unions from charging excessive dues or fees and from "featherbedding," or forcing employers to pay for work not actually performed. In addition, the law provided for new types of union elections that allowed employers faced with a union's demand for recognition to seek an NLRB-conducted election, and it enabled employees to obtain elections to determine whether to get rid of incumbent unions, whether to grant unions the authority to enter into a union shop agreement, or whether to withdraw previously granted union shop authorization.

Historical trends

Union membership

Union membership was at its peak in 1954, when 34.8 percent of all workers belonged to a union, but membership has significantly declined during the past several decades. In 1983, the rate had dropped to 20.1 percent, and it fell to 11.1 percent in 2014. In 1964, only one state, South Carolina, had a union membership rate of less than 10 percent, while three states had membership rates of more than 40 percent (Washington, Michigan and Indiana). As of 2014, nearly half the states had union membership rates below 10 percent. Alaska, Hawaii and New York are the only states with union memberships of more than 20 percent. From 2000 to 2014, several industry sectors saw substantial decreases in union membership. The job categories of installation, maintenance and repair; production; construction and extraction; and transportation and material moving saw the largest decreases.

Polls

A Gallup poll conducted in 2014 indicated that 53 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, while 38 percent disapprove of them. When asked if they would vote in favor of a right-to-work law if given the opportunity, 71 percent of Americans said that they would vote for a right-to-work law, while only 22 percent of Americans would vote against such a law. In 1957, 62 percent of Americans said they would vote for a right-to-work law, while 27 percent said they would vote against such a law. In the 1950s, union approval reached 75 percent, and disapproval was as low as 14 percent.

See also

• Labor and unions on the ballot

External links

• NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp