Right-to-Work Laws: Ideology and Impact

Ruben J. Garcia
{"title":"Right-to-Work Laws: Ideology and Impact","authors":"Ruben J. Garcia","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The debates about right-to-work (RTW) laws have raged for decades. Conservatives have long argued that a freedom principle prohibits employees from being required to pay dues even when a union represents them. Unions and their allies counter that RTW laws are actually intended to minimize the bargaining and political power of labor unions. This article outlines the ideology and impact of RTW laws in the United States. As constitutional challenges to fair share fees continue and state legislatures gradually pass RTW laws, there are many studies on the impact of RTW laws on wages and unionization, but the impact on politics is more mixed. This article analyzes the data nationally but also points to some conditions in which RTW laws may not have the impact that either their proponents or detractors predict. Literature on the topic has considered the following questions: ( a) whether wages and working conditions in RTW states are lower than in non-RTW states, ( b) whether such laws have the intent and effect of weakening worker-friendly candidates politically, and ( c) whether legal interpretations of agency fees or fair share fees are correct. Drawing on the literature in each of these areas, I explore areas of future research and offer conclusions about the state of the literature, as well as the public perceptions of RTW.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The debates about right-to-work (RTW) laws have raged for decades. Conservatives have long argued that a freedom principle prohibits employees from being required to pay dues even when a union represents them. Unions and their allies counter that RTW laws are actually intended to minimize the bargaining and political power of labor unions. This article outlines the ideology and impact of RTW laws in the United States. As constitutional challenges to fair share fees continue and state legislatures gradually pass RTW laws, there are many studies on the impact of RTW laws on wages and unionization, but the impact on politics is more mixed. This article analyzes the data nationally but also points to some conditions in which RTW laws may not have the impact that either their proponents or detractors predict. Literature on the topic has considered the following questions: ( a) whether wages and working conditions in RTW states are lower than in non-RTW states, ( b) whether such laws have the intent and effect of weakening worker-friendly candidates politically, and ( c) whether legal interpretations of agency fees or fair share fees are correct. Drawing on the literature in each of these areas, I explore areas of future research and offer conclusions about the state of the literature, as well as the public perceptions of RTW.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作权利法:意识形态和影响
关于工作权利法的争论已经持续了几十年。保守派长期以来一直认为,自由原则禁止员工被要求缴纳会费,即使工会代表他们。工会及其盟友反驳说,RTW法律实际上是为了最大限度地减少工会的议价能力和政治权力。本文概述了RTW法律在美国的意识形态和影响。随着宪法对公平分担费的挑战继续存在,各州立法机构逐渐通过RTW法律,有许多关于RTW法律对工资和工会组织的影响的研究,但对政治的影响更为复杂。本文分析了全国范围内的数据,但也指出了RTW法律可能不会产生支持者或批评者预测的影响的一些情况。关于这一主题的文献考虑了以下问题:(a)RTW州的工资和工作条件是否低于非RTW州,(b)这些法律是否有在政治上削弱对工人友好的候选人的意图和效果,以及(c)对代理费或公平份额费的法律解释是否正确。根据这些领域的文献,我探索了未来的研究领域,并就文献的现状以及公众对RTW的看法得出了结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Bankruptcy Law's Knowns and Unknowns Centering Race in Studies of Low-Wage Immigrant Labor Authoritarian Legality and State Capitalism in China Mandatory Employment Arbitration How to Study Global Lawmaking: Lessons from Intellectual Property Rights and International Health Emergencies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1