After growing up in a small conservative town, I’m used to hearing casual complaints about free-riders and government overreach. They are important issues for a party that champions personal freedoms and limited government, as well as to the idea that anyone can succeed if they work hard enough. So, I was surprised that some Republican leaders in the state Legislature were considering implementing right-to-work legislation. While they’ve since moved away from the policy, following Gov. Scott Walker’s hesitancy, it’s important to understand what “right-to-work” legislation would really mean.
Currently, employers and unions can form agreements to require non-union employees to pay agency dues. This legislation would outlaw the practice, ensuring they have a “right to work” without paying these dues.
Upon first glance, you might think it’s a reasonable policy. It gives people greater freedom to choose what they pay for, lets them take home more money and gives workers, who are ideologically opposed to unions, an opt-out from supporting them.
Yet, as described by New Republic writers Richard Kahlenberg and Moshe Z. Marvitthe, right-to-work laws give employees the right to be free-riders. Those supporting the bill basically want to enjoy the benefits of having a union (namely, higher wages and better benefits) without actually paying to make it all happen. For a party which rallies against those taking advantage of social welfare programs, they would be building the framework to let such free-riding explode.
This brings me to the second, but equally confusing, aspect of the former GOP support for this bill. Union-employer relationships are private contractual agreements and should therefore be protected under the freedom of association. As La Sierra University law and business ethics professor Gary Chartier wrote when Indiana passed a similar bill, “When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions.” The GOP has yet to identify exactly why they feel these intrusive laws are needed, other than some vague argument about workplace freedom.
When I spoke with fellow students who favor right-to-work laws, I usually received such a response along the lines of, “This would prevent you from being forced to pay for a union; it’s about freedom.” That thought is compelling, but you could easily argue that people are “forced” to work overtime, or wear a uniform as a requirement employment. Still, there are no calls to protect workers from having to buy uniforms or work weekends. The legislation would have focused solely on workplace requirements that support and aid unions.
There lies the truth, the key to understanding why conservatives would support such a non-conservative policy. Big business has been waging and winning a war on unions for the past three decades. Union membership has dropped off significantly in the past half-century and right-to-work laws have been implemented in 24 states. Collective bargaining, the cornerstone of unionization rights, was all but banned for the majority of public workers right here in Wisconsin. Weak unions translate to lower worker compensation, bigger corporate profits and presumably more money flowing back to GOP candidates. Thus, the cycle goes on and on.
As a student who wants a good-paying job to decrease my student debt and start my life, anti-union efforts are innately bad for me. They’re bad for any student or Wisconsinite who wants to be able to find jobs easily with good pay and comprehensive benefits. In fact, we should be encouraging unionization, raising the minimum wage and working to bring collective bargaining back to Wisconsin. That’s how you create a strong middle class. Right-to-work is wrong for Wisconsin, plain and simple.
Alex Derr ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in environmental studies and political science.
