Issue Position: Right to Work is Good for Kentucky

Issue Position

I support Right to Work legislation for two independent reasons: economic development and worker freedom. Right to Work laws attract businesses, thereby increasing jobs and raising tax revenues. More importantly for me, however, is that employees who are protected by Right to Work laws are not forced to join a union or be fired.

But before explaining my position in depth, it is important to be sure that we all know what Right to Work laws are. Right to Work laws prohibit what are known as union security agreements or compulsory union dues. It may be easier to understand the term by knowing what happens in the absence of Right to Work laws. Without Right to Work protections, unions may require employees who do not join the union to pay union dues. If the non-member employee does not pay these dues to the union, the employee is fired. In Right to Work jurisdictions, employees are not forced to pay a union to work. In these places, unions must persuade each employee to join their association or the union simply does not get paid.

As mentioned above, one reason I support Right to Work laws is that they enhance the economic development tools of the state or county. Dave Atkisson, President of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, has pointed out that as many as 1 in 3 employers looking to locate a factory will not consider states that have not enacted Right to Work laws. Twenty-five states have enacted Right to Work laws, so these businesses have many options, and Kentucky is surrounded by Right to Work states, such as Tennessee, Indiana and West Virginia, covering the lion's share of its borders. Therefore, to remain as competitive as possible, Kentucky needs a Right to Work law.

Recognizing this reality, recently twelve counties have adopted Right to Work ordinances. These counties are located on or near the border of a Right to Work state and their elected officials understand the consequences of not having such protections. Also, it is important to note that these twelve counties that have enacted Right to Work ordinances have done so on a wildly bi-partisan basis. For example, the fiscal court of Fulton County is all Democrat and the measure passed unanimously, and the measure passed unanimously in Simpson County, where four of the five members of fiscal court are Democrats. This is simply not a partisan issue at the local level. It becomes a partisan issue in races, such as state House races, where unions contribute a great deal of money. But, at the local level, where unions are not contributing in significant amounts, Right to Work laws are considered on their merits alone. Magistrates in these counties are not beholden to union money and, perhaps more importantly, they are closer to the people who will benefit from Right to Work laws.

So, again, one reason I support Right to Work laws is that they add an arrow into the economic development quiver of states and counties.

The second reason I support Right to Work laws is that they protect worker freedom and enhance the liberty interests of people who do not want to join an association just to have a job. Even if Right to Work laws did not improve the economic situation of a particular jurisdiction, I would still support them because of this liberty interest. Simply put, nobody should have to join an association or be fired. This is a bedrock principle upon which our nation was founded. One has the freedom to associate -- or not associate -- with any group he/she wishes. And there are many legitimate reasons that one would choose not to join a union, even if one were required, which it is not. For example, one could believe that they could spend their money more effectively on their own rather than to give it to union bosses who have often never heard of the city in which the employee works. Another reason is that the employee could simply not agree with the unions' stances on particular issues. Still another reason is that one could decide that they do not want to be associated with a group that donates heavily to particular causes. It is well known that unions contribute handsomely to Democrat candidates and the Democrat party. If one does not want to contribute to causes supported by Democrats in general or particular Democrats, they should not be required to do so (the argument that political contributions are divorced from what are known as agency fees is laughable, because unions so easily shift money from one purpose to another). But, much more particular than that, and less well known, is that unions contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood, which is the nation's most prevalent abortion provider. A person ought not be required to contribute to financially support an organization that contributes to Planned Parenthood or be fired. I serve on the board of Louisville Right to Life, and I believe that a union's contribution to Right to Life would be just as inappropriate as its contribution of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood. It has nothing to do with the workplace. If individual members, or unions for that matter, want to contribute to pro-abortion candidates, that is their right. But it is not their right to force non-members to support their causes. For that reason, I support the right of employees to not be compelled to join a union (or any association) simply to work.

Unions will respond that Right to Work laws thwart the democracy of the workplace and encourage free riders. Those dogs don't hunt. The democracy of the workplace argument is mighty dangerous and should find no support among fair minded citizens. The argument is that when 51% of employees in a particular area vote to unionize, then all employees must go along. We would never countenance such a dangerous argument in other areas. For example, we would never allow 51% of employees to require waiver of other rights. Imagine if 51% of employees wanted a male only or some other category workplace. If you don't like it, the union's argument is, you are free to go work somewhere else because you know the rules when you apply. The democracy of the workplace argument has no principal boundary, thereby allowing a naked majority to encroach upon the lives of the unwilling person who simply wants to work in many, many ways. The second response that unions have, though not persuasive, is more logical. Unions argue that Right to Work laws encourage employees to not join a union and still enjoy the benefits for which the union has bargained. I must admit that on its face, this argument has some appeal. Unions say that federal law requires them to represent non-member employees in grievances and to bargain on their behalf at the bargaining table. If this were true, the argument supporting Right to Work would be much tougher. However, it is not true.

When deciding to organize, a union has an option to become either the exclusive agent or a member's only union. If it opts to be the exclusive agent, then it is true that it must represent the interests of all employees, but it enjoys significant benefits of that choice. For one, other unions are not allowed to organize employees if there is an exclusive-agency union already there. So unions enjoy a monopoly situation, thereby occupying the field and disabling competition. This advantage must not be understated, both in terms of its financial and organizational pluses with the union. Again, this is the choice of the union and not an individual employee. But unions do not have to choose to be exclusive agents thereby being required to represent all employees. Unions could, rather, choose to be a member's only union, thereby representing the interests of only its members. Unions never choose this option because of the benefits provided under the National Labor Relations Act to exclusive agent unions [Indiana Supreme Court]. Therefore, unions should not be heard to complain about free riders when they made the decision that required them to represent non-members in the first place. The non-member workers had no choice.

These are the two reasons I support right to work laws. I do not believe my position is anti-union in any way. In fact, Right to Work laws actually benefit unions in one significant way. That is, Right to Work laws make it easier for unions to organize. To unionize, a union must get a majority of voters to favor organizing. In a Right to Work jurisdiction, organizers can better persuade employees who do not want to join the union to actually vote for it because, the argument goes, the union organizer can say "Vote for the union and allow your fellow employees to organize and you will not be affected because you don't have to join the union or pay its dues." In non-Right to Work jurisdictions, that same employee would be encouraged to vote against unionization. Again, I do not view my position as antagonistic to unions. My position is pro-worker, pro-community, and pro-family, because it attracts jobs and promotes liberty.

Source