I’m not claiming actual knowledge of why the Indiana legislature is trying to force a right to work law on its electorate, though I think I know the real reason and state my opinion below. But I suggest that, if the legislature is truly concerned about forms of compulsory unionism, that reason is illusory and unsupported by fact. Indeed, passage of a right to work law interferes with workplace democracy in a significant way.
The wrongly-named right to work laws* are a state’s rights exception to the National Labor Relations Act. Under Section 14(b) of that statute (part of Taft-Hartley), the states are given the right to pass a law prohibiting compulsory unionism. Without such a state law, the Labor Act permits unions and management to negotiate union shop provisions in the collective bargaining contract. Unlike closed shops of the past (now outlawed), union shops grant new hires a 30-day grace period (7-days in the construction industry) before s/he must pay the fees and dues a union needs to support itself. Even then, the new hire need not actually join the union by taking its oath, but must, with rare exceptions) pay a dues equivalency. (There are other forms of union security and other ways of calculating the fees, but I’m omitting them here as unnecessary to this discussion.)
Keep in mind that collective bargaining contracts are, in the main, the result of workplace democracy. At some point, the union became the exclusive employee representative via some sort of proof of the union’s majority status. That might have been through an NLRB election or some sort of voluntary recognition. Either way, the employees now have the right to vote on the collective bargaining contract once it has been negotiated. That is done by a ratification vote. Workplace democracy.
When the Taft-Hartley amendment to the Act became effective in 1947, the Congress approved not only Section 14(b), but also provided, under Section 9(e), that the employees themselves could petition the NLRB for authorization to negotiate a union shop. When most of the authorization elections turned out in favor, in 1951 Congress decided it was more important for employees to allow for a de-authorization election, which would revoke their union’s authority to negotiate a union shop or other union security clause in the CBA. At the NLRB, that is called a UD petition and must be supported by a 30% showing of interest.
Clearly a UD election is another form of workplace democracy. Employees dissatisfied with the level of dues required or some other policy of the union can invoke that type of election to send a message to the union leadership that the bargaining unit disapproves of whatever policy is being followed. Unlike a decertification election (known as an RD election) the UD election can be conducted during the term of the collective bargaining contract. (RD elections are subject to certain so-called contract bar rules aimed at stabilizing the terms and conditions it set for the contract’s duration.) Once the employees vote to deauthorize the union shop, the NLRB certifies the result and the clause is instantly nullified.
So…as long as the UD election is available, there is no need for a right to work law. Dissatisfied employees can file that UD petition and determine once and for all what sort of workplace they prefer. And a state’s right to work law prevents the employees from expressing their own wishes via secret ballot. So why is Indiana trying to interfere with the existing procedures for employees to decide on their own if they want to reject or keep a union shop clause in their contract? Why is Indiana regulating something which needs no assistance from the legislature? Doesn’t it trust the collective wisdom of the people who are actually affected by the clause?
Clearly the answer to those questions is the answer of the authoritarian, not the answer of a body supporting freedom of expression.
Which leaves only one thing as the real reason. The Indiana GOP wants to weaken the unions as a political force. It wants to run the state without having to deal with issues raised by organized labor, nay, organized employees—that is, the Indiana electorate as led by knowledgeable employee leaders. If the legislature can silence the employees’ voice, it also silences an important public policy voice.
So the Indiana GOP is an anti-democracy body aiming only to protect itself from an informed electorate. And it is lying about its reasons because whatever abuses may be found in compulsory unionism, there is already in place a procedure which employees may invoke—a democratic procedure.
---------
* Right to work laws have nothing to do with a right to a job. Neither do they create an economic climate favorable to industry in general. For the most part, they are designed to keep wages low, but that doesn’t really help the state as a whole. Here’s a link to a white paper dealing with that issue.