Frequently Asked Questions
About Right to Work

What is a Right to Work law?

Based on the Right to Work principle, Right to Work laws guarantees that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or pay dues or “fees” to a labor union. 

The language of specific Right to Work bills will vary some, depending on the other laws of the state in question. However, they are typically fairly brief, straightforward pieces of legislation that can be accomplished in one or two pages.

To over-simplify a complex topic, Right to Work laws were made necessary by 1935's National Labor Relations Act, which imposed forced unionism onto states as the default position. Subsequently, the authority of states to pass such legislation was federally codified in Section 14(b) of 1947's Taft-Hartley Act. 

What is the Right to Work Principle?

The Right to Work principle -- the unifying motivation for New England Citizens for Right to Work -- affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to affiliate with a union. Compulsory unionism in all its forms contradicts the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human rights it is founded upon.

Every individual must have the right -- but must not be compelled -- to join, fund or otherwise associate with a labor union.

How many states have Right to Work laws?

26 states currently have Right to Work laws. Although most states around the country have Right to Work laws, unfortunately no state in New England has passed one yet. We're trying to change that.

Click HERE for more information in the NECRTW Issue Brief: Right to Work States Map & Timeline.'

Can't workers just choose to work somewhere that doesn't have a union?

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, choosing to work somewhere without a union doesn't always mean that a worker can avoid direct interaction with the union. And it certainly doesn't mean avoiding the broader impact of forced unionism.

You see, labor unions are continually engaged in active campaigns to take over, or "organize", new workplaces. In some cases, this may be necessary for the union to even just stay the same size -- because compulsory unionism has driven the previous hosts to stagnate, shrink, or even close entirely. Between things like wasteful work rules, job featherbedding, slowdowns, “sick-outs,” strikes, and a union-label hate-the-boss mentality, forced-dues can be poisonous for the workplaces that succumb to it. In such cases, this "spread" is necessary simply to maintain the union's membership rolls.

Regardless of the underlying reason, though, it is undisputed that labor unions can -- and do -- move in to new workplaces. Therefore, even if someone sought a job at a workplace without a union specifically to avoid a particular union boss, that doesn't mean that the workplace will stay that way. Unions don't typically permit "grandfather clauses" to let pre-existing employees off the hook -- employees can be forced to pay the union, or be fired, even if they were working there long before the union arrived.

Furthermore, the consequences of forced unionism are even far broader than specific workplaces. The fact is, entire industries, cities, and states suffer. Union-label politicians and Big Labor-stacked bureaucracies strangle small businesses with confiscatory taxes, destructive laws, and straitjacket regulations. And Big Labor’s forced-dues treasury is pure poison to our political system, as union bosses use forced-dues dollars to fund a massive political machine.

Is this a federal issue?

It's true that today, most labor law falls in the domain of the federal government. Of course, things didn't start that way -- it took some massaging of the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause to get there. For most of our nation's 250-year history, the government -- and especially the federal government -- stayed out of labor relations to a degree radically different than how things work today. 

However, for approximately the last century, the federal government has asserted primary authority over labor-management relations. One of the most-notable early pieces of federal legislation on the subject was the Railway Labor Act of 1926, which continues to govern labor relations in the modern railroad and airline industries. The real game-changer, though, was 1935's National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act or NLRA). Although it has been amended and implemented differently in the intervening years, it remains the foundation of private-sector labor law to this day.

The NLRA was followed by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, which amended it by dialing back some of the most egregious union-boss power-grabs. Most significantly, Section 14(b) of the federal Taft-Hartley Act codified the ability of states to pass Right to Work laws -- and they've been doing so ever since.

So although the federal government does claim that most of labor law falls within its domain, it specifically acknowledges the legitimacy of state Right to Work laws.

That being said, their is a parallel effort to pass a National Right to Work law at the federal level (S.533/H.R. 1232), led by the National Right to Work Committee. A National Right to Work law would be great, but until such a bill is passed, state Right to Work laws remain a critical tool for ending forced unionism.

What is 14(b)?

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act is the part of federal labor law that guarantees states the right enact Right to Work laws. The National Labor Relations Act imposed forced-unionism on states by default, but 14(b) empowers states to opt out of this abusive federal policy.

What is Exclusive Representation?

The National Labor Relations Act's "Exclusive Representation" provision strips workers of their freedom to bargan with their own employer. "Exclusive Representation" gives union officials the power to represent all employees, including employees who do not want union representation, in any bargaining unit in which the union is certified. The authorization of compulsory unionism adds insult to injury by allowing agreements between employers and unions to compel these same workers to associate with the union and pay union dues/fees for unwanted union "services" -- or be fired.

Is Right to Work pro-union or anti-union?

Neither pro-union or anti-union, Right to Work is simply pro-worker and anti-compulsion.

Right to work laws do not interfere with anyone that wants to form, join, pay,, or bargain through a union. In fact, they explicitly affirm the right of all workers to voluntarily join labor unions and to bargain collectively. Unions still exist in Right to Work states, where they tend to be more responsive to the workers they want to represent.

Under Right to Work, if you like your union, you can keep it.

However, Right to Work recognizes that the right not to associate with a labor union is a natural and necessary corollary of the right to associate with a labor union. Freedom rests on choice and where choice is denied, freedom is destroyed as well.

Under Right to Work, if you don't want to join and pay a labor union, you don't have to -- just like every other private organization.

Aren’t agency fees fine because the majority has selected the union as an exclusive bargaining agent?

The premise is flawed, because in most cases, a majority of workers hasn't actually selected the union. Union certifications are, by default, perpetual. It isn't uncommon for a workplace to have been unionized before any current workers were there. 

Furthermore, even a new union certification does not require a majority of workers in the bargaining unit. It merely requires a majority of those voting -- making it possible for unions to intimidate non-supportive workers into avoiding the vote. All too often, this is done through direct violence. However, it doesn't take direct violence every time to send the message that direct violence is possible. Based on a review of NLRB records, roughly a fifth of new union certifications in New Hampshire over the last couple decades have been without a majority of eligible voters.

At the most basic level though, this line of thinking is flawed because it is comparing unions, which are in the private sector, to government, which is the public sector. Government, by its very nature, has to coerce people. That is not a justification for giving unions government’s coercive powers.

It is not the proper role of government to establish and enforce policies saying that 51% of a workforce can vote to compel the other 49% of the workforce to fund the National Rifle Association, Greenpeace, or even the American Red Cross.

Are forced dues used for political purposes?

Yes. Under our current system of labor laws, unions are heavily and inherently political organizations. Money is fungible, so ultimately forced-dues subsidize Big Labor's massive political machine.

How did early labor union leaders feel about Right to Work?

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (which later merged to become the AFL-CIO, the largest labor union in the country), recognized the danger of tyranny that could results from compulsory unionism.

In the 1916 American Federationist, Gompers said, "The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and liberty". 

This was far from the only time Gompers spoke in support of the Right to Work principle. Other frequently-cited examples include: 

"I want to urge devotion the the fundamentals of human liberty -- the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."

And "There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that right".

Gompers' position was recognized by his successors, even as they turned away from it. George Meany, long-time President of the AFL-CIO, acknowledged "He [Samuel Gompers] founded the American Federation of Labor on the bedrock of voluntarism. Lennin called it a 'rope of sand'. Gompers retorted that this rope of sand would prove more powerful than chains of steel. He believed with his whole soul in personal freedom, in democratic government and in the ultimate triumph of voluntary human cooperation over any form of compulsion or dictationship."

Gompers would undoubtably be heartbroken to see what the organization has morphed into today.

How often do workplaces unionize?

New Hampshire Private Sector

It's complicated! National Labor Relations Board records reveal 163 cases where "Representation Petitions" have been filed in New Hampshire over the last ~22 years, which averages out to 7-8 petitions per year. Approximately two-thirds of those have advanced to unionization elections (113), and of those that do, unions have won about three-quarters of them (86). That works out to 3-4 new private-sector bargaining units unionizing per year in the state.

Now, a "bargaining unit" isn't exactly the same thing as a workplace -- 28 of those were just at one company! About a fourth of bargaining units certified were between 1 and 5 employees, a fourth were 50+ employees, and the remaining half fell between 5 and 50 workers. 

To look at it another way, a little less than 200 workers a year have their workplaces unionize (when it comes to the New Hampshire private sector). Even as unions spend a ton of money on so-called "organizing" campaigns, not that may workplaces here bite -- although that doesn't diminish the grief that workers and small-business owners may experience along the way. 

Getting a full picture requires a net calculation, however. During the same period of time, 19 decertification petitions were filed in New Hampshire, where workers sought to de-unionize their workplace, and 7 of them were successful. Then there's also deauthorization petitions, which specifically seek to strip forced-dues power from the bargaining unit's union boss, and you can keep getting further into the weeds from there.

The take-away is that a negligible percentage of Granite State workers have actively and intentionally brought a union into their workplace. Between monopoly bargaining authority, forced-dues power, and the behavior that union bosses currently engage in, that shouldn't be too surprising. When Right to Work passes, if union bosses choose to reform and become more responsive to the needs of their members, they might find more people start knocking on their door.

How many workers are currently subject to forced unionism?

NH: ~28,000

ME: ~33,000

VT: ~21,000

MA: ~238,000

CT: ~150,000

RI: ~45,000

New England: ~576,000

Note: Estimates from unionstats.com based on the Current Population Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What percentage of jobs are unionized?

Overall Private-Sector Public-Sector

NH 9.9% 4.7% 44.1%

ME 14.1% 7.3% 54.6%

VT 14.8% 8.6% 46.4%

MA 15.3% 8.0% 63.4%

CT 17.2% 10.3% 65.0%

RI 17.4% 10.5% 52.9%

New England 15.3% 8.4% 59.4%

Note: Estimates from unionstats.com based on the Current Population Survey, conducted by the US Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

How do I learn more about state & local public-sector unions in New Hampshire?

Each state has authority over its own public-sector labor law at the state and county/municipal level, and each state does it a little differently.

In New Hampshire, public employee labor relations are governed by RSA 273-A, and administered by Public Employee Labor Relations Board. Administrative rules, court decisions, specific contracts for various bargaining units, and more can be found on their website.