Skip to main content

On the First of this month, Republican legislators and the Republican governor gave Indiana a so-called "right to work" law.1 2 Except to undercut it, such a law really has nothing to do with the Right to Work, and so should be renamed. For the reason that follows, let's call it the "right to shirk" law. The true Right to Work is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23:3

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
The "right to shirk" law stifles free bargaining by banning a particular contract provision – that a non-union worker pay one's fair share of the cost of union services.4 That ban weakens the union's ability to protect the worker's interests, thus undercutting the Right to Work. By federal rules, the union has the duty of fair representation, and must bargain for and defend all workers, union members or not, in the shop.5 So, under the "right to shirk" law, the worker in a shop where the union has been voted in has this choice: join the union and pay the dues, or shirk paying one's fair share, and take a free ride on the backs of union members.

National Right to Shirk Act?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) urges a federal "right to shirk" law to limit free bargaining, and asks you to be a "sledgehammer" against "forced unionism" -- something that doesn't exist.6

(From The Paragraph.)


1. 'Indiana state House approves right-to-work bill'  by James B. Kelleher, Reuters, 2012-01-25

The House approved the law by a 54-to-44 margin, even though five Republicans joined Democratic lawmakers to oppose it.

The state Senate voted 28 to 22 in favor of the measure, with nine Republicans joining all 13 Democrats in voting against it.

2. 'Indiana becomes first Rust-Belt 'right to work' state. Will others follow?' by Mark Guarino, February 1, 2012

3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

4. '"Right to Work" Laws: Get the Facts' - Minnesota AFL-CIO

A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them.  Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not.  In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.

“Right to Work” laws aren’t fair to dues-paying members.  If a worker who is represented by a union and doesn’t pay dues is fired illegally, the union must use its time and money to defend him or her, even if that requires going through a costly, time-consuming legal process.  Since the union represents everyone, everyone benefits, so everyone should share in the costs of providing these services.  Amazingly, nonmembers who are represented by a union can even sue the union is they think it has not represented them well enough!

5. 'The Duty of Fair Representation' - UE (United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America)
Throughout the years a legal principle has been developed by the National Labor Relations Board called "the duty of fair representation" (DFR). This legal principle quite simply states that a union must represent all workers equally and without prejudice. A union cannot refuse to represent or improperly represent a worker due to the worker's age, race, creed, nationality, sex, religion, political beliefs, union status or personality. If a union fails to represent a worker due to prejudice, or hostility, the union can be charged.

The idea of failure to represent includes failing to properly investigate a grievance, process a grievance, or in some cases, even to arbitrate a grievance.

The duty to represent all workers is especially true in the case where a non-member or anti-union worker files a grievance. Personal feelings or the feelings of the membership cannot be allowed to interfere with the processing of that person's grievance.

6. '"Right to Work" Laws: Get the Facts' - Minnesota AFL-CIO
Q: Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union?
A: No.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union.  Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.


Q: Does a union security clause require nonmembers to pay full union dues?
A: No.  Nonmembers are required to pay only the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining expenses, so these costs are fairly shared by all represented employees.

* * *

By Quinn Hungeski,, Copyright (CC BY-ND) 2012

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    The Paragraph: Terse news, history and science.

    by hungeski on Sun Feb 12, 2012 at 08:23:59 PM PST

  •  This kind of legislation promotes the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    false notion that legislators are in a position to dole out human rights.  They're not, regardless of how often or loudly they proclaim they are.  Human rights are endemic to our natures as humans; they are inherent in our characteristic behaviors:


    What legislators have historically doled out as rights

    grazing rights
    hunting rights
    fishing rights
    logging rights
    mining rights
    transit rights
    water rights

    relate to the temporal and/or exclusive use of natural resources--i.e. property, as opposed to the exercise of our properties.  To mistake one for the other is an error--an error that can be explained as resulting from the fact that the latter can be controlled, while the former can't, however much our legislators might want to.  Also, the desire to manipulate people by restricting their natural rights seems to compensate for the fact that some people are impractical.  That is, because they are personally incapable of manipulating the natural environment to sustain themselves, they have to induce other people to do it for them.  So, they rely on their gift of gab to cajole others into working for them.

    Long story short?  Our legislators, for the most part, are freeloaders--have to be because they are incompetent.  If we select such people to manage our resources, we can expect them to manage poorly.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:01:27 AM PST

    •  License to Shirk (0+ / 0-)

      I think it might be better to reserve the word "rights" for natural rights,  and "privilege" or "license" for law-given "rights". So, the law in question here would more properly be called "license to shirk," sort of like "license to kill." Still, I think "right to shirk" serves better to mock the ridiculous name that whatever spinmeister gave it way back when.

      The Paragraph: Terse news, history and science.

      by hungeski on Thu Feb 16, 2012 at 09:51:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site