Freedom of Association

My home state of Wisconsin recently passed right to work legislation, which gives workers the option of keeping money they earned rather than having it forcefully given to a union. The workers also can not be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Stating those facts aloud in some circles will raise the ire of those who support the unions, as if giving an honest assessment of what the legislation actually does harms their position.

I have listened to many supporters of unions speak on the matter, but I rarely hear anyone give an answer to the question "why should anyone be forced to give money to a union?". They will usually prattle on about wages, safety, collective bargaining or worker training...things they perceive would cease to exist without every worker giving money to the union. The examples given might be reasons why unions shouldn't be banned, but that isn't what right to work deals with.

The most logical argument I have heard anyone on the side of forced unionization is the so called free-rider concept. The position is that workers that fail to contribute to the union will reap the benefits of the union without having to pay. On its face, this seems to be a valid position to hold, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Unions have an option of whether they are an exclusive representative of all workers within a shop or unit, so whether or not there are free-riders is up to the union. I would speculate that the unions want to remain exclusive representatives, not only to keep competition at bay, but also to have the free-rider card in their hand, as it plays well to the rank-and-file members. (as dishonest as it may be)

Another suggestion I have heard from workers that fall on the pro-union side of the debate is "if a worker doesn't like a union, why not go work at a non-union shop?" The problem with this line of thinking is that the workers don't own the business. I could go along with the argument if the owner of the business wanted to make a union mandatory, since it's his or her business in the first place. But mob rules do not dictate employment. If a majority of workers decided it would be a good idea for everyone to go out drinking every night after work, those that opt out shouldn't be forced to go find work at a non-drinking business. And the fact that a worker may choose not to go out drinking isn't an endorsement of bringing back the 18th amendment.

The real reason that unions oppose right to work legislation is money. If I had enjoyed a deal where people were forced to give me money, and suddenly the people were given an option of not giving me the money, I'm sure I could appreciate the objections with more clarity! The problem for unions when it comes to money is, they are constantly berating greed. They convince a large number of its members that wanting more in their case isn't greed, but that of management is. "This is not about money, it's about respect!". But it is about money, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more money.

Unions will continue, post-right to work, to receive money from many of its members. Anyone that sees value in the services they receive from the union will be free to contribute and support the union. A side-effect of right to work in fact, may come down in favor of workers that support the union. Since members have an option of contributing, it is up to the leadership within the unions to ensure they produce a quality product for its members.

Coming down on the side of freedom always works for me. People that are opposed to right to work laws might object to the term freedom being applied in this case, but giving an individual the option of joining or contributing to an organization sure fits the definition.