HRMT413 Week 5 Discussion

This week's discussion will focus on Right to Work (RTW) laws.

1. What do Right to Work laws mean? What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? Does your state have a Right to Work law? What are your personal opinions on RTW?

2. Summarize the Janus case. Who were the parties? What was in dispute? How did the court rule? What is the effect of the decision on unions?

This week's discussion will focus on Right to Work (RTW) laws.

1. What do Right to Work laws mean? What are the benefits? What are the drawbacks? Does your state have a Right to Work law? What are your personal opinions on RTW?

RTW laws in effect restrict an employees ability to organize and initiate unions against their employers. Benefits include a greater reality of utilizing the available job market to compete against wages, experience and an employees Contract to fulfill their responsibilities as to their employer. If they fail in their duties, it makes it easier for the employee to be let go and allows for quick transition of new employees. Drawbacks have mixed results in studies over the years. One of the easiest drawbacks can be the assertion of an employer being able to fire you for...

underlying discriminatory reasons without clear proof. South Carolina enacted a RTW law in 1954. I think a healthy mix between RTW and government entities such as the EEOC creates a healthy balance between a free market system with competition and accountability to both employer and employee.

2. Summarize the Janus case. Who were the parties? What was in dispute? How did the court rule? What is the effect of the decision on unions?

Janus was a State employee of Illinois that claimed his first amendment rights were being violated. He was being forced to pay into a union he was voluntarily not a member of as a State/ Public employee. In the initial ruling by the lower court they asserted a previous ruling of Abood v. Detroit against him, 1977. Previously SCOTUS had ruled in favor of an employers ability to leverage forced fees against non-union members so long as the unions actions benefited all employees not just union members ones. In the new ruling in favor of Janus the court ruled that the non union member could not be forced to pay for speech, union advocacy, that they did not agree with. The dissenting opinion stated that over 20 states had complex laws on the books in support of the Abood ruling 40years prior and they failed to account for the impact upon the workers under those States and laws. The SCOTUS ruling in Janus led to States and public sector employers being forced to stop collecting union dues from non members.

While I can agree with the point of concern towards impact, that is not the Judicial purpose of SCOTUS. Their job is to rule within the law or not, it is incumbent upon the other 2 branches to weigh the impacts of the laws they create. Judiciaries job is to uphold or enforce, not decide on the ethical impact solely.