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?

From this week's reading list, the article Right to Work Law-Explained, summarizes Right to Work Laws as law that states that workers have the right to work in workplaces without joining the union or being unionized. This law prohibits workers from being prevented from engaging in employment because they have refused to join the union or pay union dues. (Gordon, 2021) Studies have shown that states that have passed Right to Work Laws have benefited from stronger work forces as well as more interest from foreign investors and businesses. Some criticisms of Right to Work laws include the ability of companies to

operate without unions leaves more chance of important safety standards not being enforced as well as workplace inequality that protects workers, thus leading to the National Right to Work Act being introduced to enable workers who are members of unions to opt out of union membership. In the commonwealth of VA, where I live, there are Right to Work Laws. It is my belief that the person doing the work should always have a voice. Like many other things, history has shown corruption and abuse can be easily attributed or introduced. There are Unions that have their worker's best interests in mind and there are those that bend more to the hierarchy of the organizations that the unions are being created in.

In an opinion of the court delivered by Justice Alito, concerning MARK JANUS, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN FEDER- ATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, et al, it read that Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. In the court's opinion the similar case of Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977) was referred to as a precedent, and previously upheld law, however it was recognized that due to the important Freedom of Speech rights at stake in the case, precedence should be broken because the Abood case was poorly reasoned and created practical problems and abuse. The case was inconsistent with other first amendment cases and was therefore overruled. Due to this ruling, public employees who do not belong to a union cannot be required to pay a fee to cover the union’s costs to negotiate a contract that applies to all public employees, including those who are not union members.