Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a "closed shop," in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlaws the "closed shop." The Act, however, permits employers and unions to operate under a "union shop" rule, which requires all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under "union shop" rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.

A similar arrangement to the “union shop” is the “agency shop,” under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is member or financial contributor to such union.

The Federal Government operates under "open shop" rules nationwide, although many of its employees are represented by unions. Conversely, professional sports leagues (regardless of where a team is located) operate under "union shop" rules.

Proponents of right-to-work laws point to the Constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as the common-law principle of private ownership of property. They argue that workers should be free both to join unions and to refrain from joining unions, and for this reason often refer to non-right-to-work states as "forced-union" states. They contend that it is wrong for unions to be able to force employers to include clauses in their union contracts which require all employees to either join the union, or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Furthermore, they contend that in certain cases "forced union dues" are used to support political causes, causes which many union members may oppose.

Business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce lobbied extensively for right-to-work legislation in the southern states.^[1][2][3][4] Opponents argue Right-to-work laws create a so-called free-rider problem, in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.^[1] Critics contend outlawing compulsory union dues makes union activities less sustainable. Opponents argue that the laws prevent free contracts between unions and business owners, and that this makes it harder for unions to organize and less attractive for people to join a union. For these reasons, they often refer to "right-to-work" states as "right-to-fire" states, and "non-right-to-work" states as "free collective bargaining" states. Critics point out that while the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation purports to be a grass-roots movement^{[citation needed]}, it has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New York based John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. which grew out of a family manufacturing business, and other right wing foundations.^[5][6]

Opponents further argue that because unions are weakened by these laws, wages are lowered and worker safety and health is endangered. They cite statistics from the United States Department of Labor showing, for example, that in 2003 the rate of workplace fatalities per 100,000 workers was highest in right-to-work states. 19 of the top 25 states for worker fatality rates were right-to-work states, while 3 of the bottom 25 states were right-to-work states. A 2001 study by the union-funded Economic Policy Institute showed that workers in right-to-work states earned an average of 6.5% less (4% after controlling for regional costs of living) than their counterparts in states without the law.^{[citation needed]}

Right to work laws can also be argued against on the basis of free market principles^[7]. If a union, without benefit of government power or influence backing it up, is able to negotiate an agreement that requires union membership of employees, this would be a private matter, not legitimately subject to interference from the government in a fully free market. It would be a matter of a "seller" (union) making union membership of labor part of the "market price" for its "goods" (the labor of its membership). The "buyer" (business) can accept the deal, attempt a different negotiation, or would be free to seek labor elsewhere. So long as neither union nor business has government weighing in on its side, this would be a fully free market transaction. A right to work law would limit the free market forces operating on negotiating the price of labor, effectively putting some portion of the coercive power of government at the disposal of the business in a manner not available to the union. Proponents of right to work laws might counter that unions, like all cartels, are not viable without the support of the state, and thus are not free market actors. While right to work laws interfere with private contracts, they do so by limiting existing government interference.

Right-to-work states shown in turquoise

The following 22 states are right-to-work states:

• Alabama
• Arizona - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
• Arkansas - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
• Florida - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Mississippi
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma - (established by state's Constitution, not by statute)
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wyoming

The territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws.

• At-will employment

1. ^ ^{a b} "The South Carolina Governance Project - Interest Groups in South Carolina," Center for Governmental Services, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, University of South Carolina, Accessed July 6, 2007.

   South Carolina has long been one of the least unionized states in the nation. In 2000 the state ranked 49th with 4 percent unionized, only slightly ahead of North Carolina. As a result, organized labor has relatively less clout in the state than in most other states. One of the main goals of powerful business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce has been to keep labor unions out of the state, and they have been quite successful in their efforts. A major tool in weakening efforts to unionize the labor force has been the "right-to-work" laws, passed more than 40 years ago. These laws outlaw the "closed shop," which would force all workers to join a union when a majority of workers vote to be represented by the union. The idea behind the closed shop is to prevent what is called "free riders," that is, workers who benefit from union contracts without having to pay to support the union efforts.

   Even public employee unions, which, unlike private sector unions, have been growing nationally, are limited in South Carolina. State government does not engage in collective bargaining with public employees and prohibits strikes. S.C. Code (Section 8-11-33) only allows dues for the State Troopers' Association and State Employees' Association to be withheld in paychecks if they do not engage in collective bargaining or encourage members to strike. The simultaneous strikes by public school teachers and university professors in Hawaii in the spring of 2001 that ultimately led to double digit pay increases simply could not take place in South Carolina.

2. ^ Berkeley Miller and William Canak, (1991) "From "Porkchoppers" to "Lambchoppers": The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 2; pp. 349-366.
3. ^ Dane M. Partridge, (1997) "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition," Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Volume 10, Number 2; pp. 127-139.
4. ^ William Canak and Berkeley Miller, (1990) "Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 43, No. 2; pp. 258-271.
5. ^ "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation," Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
6. ^ "John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.," Media Transparency, Accessed July 24, 2007.
7. ^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/platform.html#uniocoll

• National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
• National Right to Work Committee
• National Institute for Labor Relations Research
• Effects of Right to Work Laws on Employees, Unions and Businesses

• Center for Policy Alternatives: Right to Work—-For Less
• www.fairwage.org - - Grassroots campaign to repeal the Idaho Right-to-work Law
• Bad for Indiana -- www.badforindiana.org -- A grassroots effort to stop the right-to-work campaign in Indiana.
• The Michigan AFL-CIO: Key Points on Right-to-Work in Michigan.

Categories: NPOV disputes from December 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since August 2007 | Labor law of the United States | Labor relations in the United States | Organizational studies and human resource management | Human rights