"Right to Work" Is No Protection From Card Check

by James Sneeringer

Some people have suggested that businesses in right-to-work states would not be significantly affected by the Employee Free Choice Act. Today over 180 state and local chambers told Congress and their governors that that was not true:

Workers in right-to-work states are just as likely as those in other states to find themselves suddenly unionized as the result of a secret card check campaign. Even though workers in right-to-work states do have the right to refuse to pay union dues, if the workplace is organized, they must give up their right to deal directly with their employer. Likewise, employers would be forced to accept arbitration agreements that may impose conditions inconsistent with established business models and impede the ability to compete.

The message is pretty clear: although right-to-work is an important protection for employees, it's not a panacaea. It doesn't prevent workers from being subject to union organizing campaigns, which under the card-check system proposed in EFCA, might involve intimidation or coercion. Worse, right-to-work does nothing to protect workers or their employers from the binding arbitration requirements of EFCA. Even if they are not paying union dues, employees could end up having the "right to work" at a company that is no longer able to compete in the marketplace because core business decisions have been dictated to them. That "right" might not last long these days. Again from the letter:

Given the growing economic recession, it is critical that businesses have the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of a challenging economy if we are to create an environment in which businesses can grow and create jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act is inconsistent with this critical goal.

Read the letter on the Chamber's Web site. Other state and local chambers can sign onto the letter there as well.

Comments

[JM]

What if Right-To-Work states enact legislation that waters down or eliminates EFCA in their state? I can see real some real potential state's rights issues here if certain states (i.e. Texas) oppose a federal mandate to, in effect, allow a union take over of their state. EFCA seems to me to be an example of a fat, overzealous federal government once again leaping before it looks.