S l|||||ll|’|'iiV|eW||fl|'1||l1"[i|‘iI,’ i"I'iiuu°n 010 [’||'|"i'|U|’|i|a|l|l|||| 8612 5 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RIGHT-T0—WORK LAWS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER 1377015 W E@§*§3QEf~$ AUTHOR: Ahmuty, Alice Economics Division THE LIBRARY or CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH szavxcn MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM%' DATE ORIGINATED Q DATE UPDATED Q we Es. M lO3l~J |Ol~J FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0225 /\\ T CRS- 1 IB77016 UPDATE-OZ/22/80 ISSUE DEFINITION Sec. 1fl(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act gives individual States the right to outlaw union security provisions. That is, the States can pass laws that .make it illegal for unions to negotiate a union shop or agency shop provision. in a collective bargaining agreement. Organized ‘labor has opposed this provision since its passage in 1947. w§A-§§§QUND AED PQLl§I.A!ALZS §. The issue concerns the extent to which Federal and State law should sanction union security clauses in labor-management agreements. Such clauses are included at the unions‘ request, ‘and with employers consent in the collective-bargaining process. Under Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Taft-Hartley Act (The Labor Management Relations Act of 19a?) union security provisions in collective bargaining agreements are permitted. Closed shops are outlawed but other forms of union security (union shop, agency shop, maintenance of membership) can be bargained over and included in labor contracts. However, Sec. 1u(b) of the same Act states: "Nothing in the Act should be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.“ At present, 20 States have passed their own legislation under Sec. 14(b) outlawing union shops and other union security agreements in their states. ' A The language of Sec. 1fl(b) became the focus of what has become known as e "right-to—work“ controversy. In summary, the Federal law permits union security agreement [in sec. 81a)(3)] where not prohibited [as per sec. 1n(b)] by State law. Repeal of sec. 1fl(b) would remove the authority of States to prohibit such union security agreements. ' T The expression "right—to—work" is generally used by non-union groups to denote the “open shop" situation where workers are not reguired to join a union or pay dues toha union to keep their jobs. Union forces are quick to add that such laws do not establish any rights to a job and therefore are misnamed, misleading, and blatantly anti-union. The forces most active in this controversy are the National Right to work Committee (which sees union shops aswa form of compulsory unionism), and the 'wAFL-CIO and other labor groups who supported the repeal of Sec. 14(b). ‘The last major effort to repeal Sec. 14(b) occurred in 1965 when a billi passed the House but was shelved in the Senate after extended debate and after a move to close debate failed to win a two thirds majority. Since that time, no» major pcongressional action has taken place regarding the "right-to-work" issue. Several arguments advanced by labor forces that support the repeal of lsection 1u(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act include: vright~to-work is a c chphrase purposely used to mislead the =public; the "free. rider" is p asitic and socially irresponsible; right-to-work laws are rooted in anti—unionism; the workers and employers want union security; the rights of minorities are swell protected in agreements containing union security cas— 2 1377016 UPDATE-02/22/so provisions; the majority has rights that the minority should not be permitted to destroy;° right-to-worky laws can frustrate and endanger collective bargaining; a right to work law is no cure for union abuse; right-to-work laws are no aid to economic growth; the economics of right-to-work are the economics of exploitation. However, the National Bight-Toework Committee and other forces that oppose .the repeal of sec. 1n(b) argue that: right-to-work laws are properly named; compulsory unionism is not necessary for union security; right-to-work laws have not stopped the growth of voluntary unionism; compulsory membership is a perversion of the principal of majority rule in government; the compulsory union shop protects union abuses; the free rider argument is untenable; compulsory unionism cannot be justified on the basis of freedom of contract; right—to-work laws have been compatible with peaceful relations, greater efficiency and economic growth; and the public favors right-to—work laws by almost three to one. The current "right-to-work" states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 5 Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, I Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. I-.§§.l§.LA'-.P.l9P! H.B. 663 (Robinson), H.R. 1219 (McDonald), H.R. 1270 (Young of Florida), H.R. H656 (Edwards), S. 1577 (Jepsen) Amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act “to eliminate all provisions authorizing union security agreements requiring ion membership as a condition of employment (union shop agreements). First itroduced on Jan. 15, 1979: referred to the House Education and Labor Committee. ~ H.R. 3750 (Oberstar) Repeals Section 14(b) of the Taft—Hartley Act. Introduced Apr. 25, 1979; referred to House Education and Labor Committee. . S. 1576 (Jepsen) Amends the National Labor Relations Act -and the Railway Labor Act to exempt students in full-time programs of secondary, vocational or higher ieducation from agreements requiring membership or financial support of a labor organization. Introduced on July 26; referred to the Committee on (Labor and Human Resources. §1.1B..Q!QLQ§Z-Q£_§Z§EI§ O5/00/79 -- naine House and Senate failed to pass state “right-to-work” law. on/05/79 -— New Hampshire House passed, and Senate "indefinitely 5 postponed" a “right-to-work" bill. 02/O0/79 -- New Mexico Governor King vetoed state “right-to-work“ bill. CRS- 3 IB77016 UPDATE—O2/22/80 11/07/78 -- The voters of Missouri turned down, by a vote of 628,000 for to 930,000 against, a proposed "right-to-work" state consitutional amendment that would have outlawed union shop agreements and made Missouri a "right-to-work" state. - §.DD.T;l‘I.QN.El-._B.§.1F§§§l!Q§-.5QQB§.§§. Aebi, Timothy and Robert A. McLean. Bight-to-work laws and industrial expansion._ Indian business review, v. 53, Sept.-Oct. 1978, p. 7-10. Lumsden, K. and C. Peterson. The effect of right-to-work laws on Unionization in the U.S. journal of political economy. Dec. 1975. v. 83(6). p. 1237-48. Miller, R.L. Right to work laws and compulsory union membership in the U.S. British journal of industrial relations. July V. D Po . Moore, W.J., R.J. Newman and R.W. Thomas. Determinates of the passage of right-to-work laws; an alternative interpretation. Journal of law economics. Apr. 1974. v. 17.1 p. 197-211. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Right-torvork (Sec. 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act): An Overview [by] Patrick Hunt. Feb. 25, 1977. [Washington, 1977]. 27 p. ' nultilith 77-343 Section 1u(b) of the Taft-Hartly Act and State right-to-work laws: an inquiry into their effects [byjpaames R. Wason. Jan. 21, 1966. [Washington, 1966] 96 p. uultilith HD 6088 E 129. r--*— Union Security: The Current Legal Status [by] Vincent Treacy, Mar. 7, 1979. 10 p. OF WASHJNGTGN UNIVERSRTY 31". Lows ~ MC). 1 MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Content type Notes Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Scanning system software Optical resolution Color settings File types Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Resolution Color File types Notes Book Text Cover has cut—out to show title on title Page Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection 20l7 April Ricoh MP C4503 600 dpi grayscale tiff Group 4 600 dpi bitonal tiff