View source for Right-to-work law

{{Short description|U.S. laws prohibiting mandated union membership and dues}}
{{About|the U.S. laws prohibiting mandated union membership and dues|the human-rights concept|Right to work|the Indian law|National Rural Employment Guarantee Act|the concept in UK immigration law|Right to Work laws in the UK}}
{{distinguish|At-will employment}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2021}}
{{Use American English|date=February 2019}}
{{Update|date=June 2024}}
{{Economy of the United States sidebar}}
In the context of [[labor law in the United States]], the term '''right-to-work laws''' refers to state laws that prohibit [[union security agreement]]s between employers and [[labor unions]]. Such agreements can be incorporated into union contracts to require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation. Unlike the [[right to work]] definition as a [[human right]] in [[international law]], U.S. right-to-work laws do not aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work but rather guarantee an employee's right to refrain from being a member of a [[labor union]].

The 1947 federal [[Taft–Hartley Act]] governing [[private sector]] employment prohibits the "[[closed shop]]" in which employees are required to be members of a union as a condition of employment, but allows the [[union shop]] or "agency shop" in which employees pay a fee for the cost of representation without joining the union.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Baird |first1=Charles W. |title=Right to work before and after 14(b) |journal=Journal of Labor Research |date=June 1998 |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=471–493 |id={{ProQuest|214005215}} |doi=10.1007/s12122-998-1042-y |s2cid=153369005 }}</ref> Individual U.S. states set their own policies for state and local government employees (i.e. public sector employees). Twenty-eight states have right-to-work policies (either by [[statutes]] or by [[State constitution (United States)|constitutional]] provision).<ref name="Botsch_SCGP" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Miller|first1=Berkeley|last2=Canak|first2=William|year=1991|title=From 'Porkchoppers' to 'Lambchoppers': The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act|journal=Industrial and Labor Relations Review|volume=44|issue=2|pages=349–66|doi=10.2307/2524814|jstor=2524814}}<br />{{cite journal|last1=Partridge|first1=Dane M.|year=1997|title=Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition|journal=Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal|volume=10|issue=2|pages=127–39|doi=10.1023/A:1025657412651|s2cid=151081867}}<br />{{cite journal|last1=Canak|first1=William|last2=Miller|first2=Berkeley|year=1990|title=Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation|journal=Industrial and Labor Relations Review|volume=43|issue=2|pages=258–71|doi=10.2307/2523703|jstor=2523703}}</ref> In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that agency shop arrangements for [[Public-sector trade unions in the United States|public sector employees]] were unconstitutional in the case ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]''.

== History ==

===Origins===
The original use of the term ''[[right to work]]'' was coined by French socialist leader [[Louis Blanc]] before 1848.<ref>{{cite book |last=Robertson |first=Priscilla Smith |date=1952 |title=Revolutions of 1848: A Social History |url=https://archive.org/details/revolutionsof18400robe |url-access=registration |quote=Right to work. |publisher=Princeton University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/revolutionsof18400robe/page/69 69] |oclc=361520 |lccn=52005838}}</ref> According to the [[American Enterprise Institute]], the modern usage of the term ''right to work'' was coined by ''[[Dallas Morning News]]'' editorial writer William Ruggles in 1941.<ref name=aei-alternative-facts-coined-term>{{cite web |url=https://www.aei.org/publication/dallas-morning-news-editorial-writer-william-ruggles-coined-the-term-right-to-work-on-labor-day-in-1941 |title=Dallas Morning News editorial writer William Ruggles coined the term "right to work" on Labor Day in 1941 |last=Perry |first=Mark J. |date=September 1, 2014 |website=AEIIdeas |publisher=American Enterprise Institute |access-date=February 11, 2018}}</ref>

According to ''[[PandoDaily]]'', the modern term was coined by [[Vance Muse]], a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] operative who headed the Christian American Association, an early right-to-work advocacy group, to replace the term "American Plan" after it became associated with the anti-union violence of the [[first Red Scare]].<ref name="pando">{{cite magazine |last=Ames |first=Mark |date=March 13, 2015 |title=As "Right To Work" becomes law in Wisconsin, a reminder of its inventor's racist past |url=https://pando.com/2015/03/13/as-right-to-work-becomes-law-in-wisconsin-a-reminder-of-its-inventors-racist-past/ |magazine=PandoDaily |access-date=February 11, 2018}}</ref> Muse used [[racial segregation in the United States|racial segregationist]] arguments in advocating for anti-union laws.<ref>{{cite book |last=Colby |first=Gerard |title=Du Pont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain |publisher=Lyle Stewart |year=1984 |location=Secaucus |chapter=Decade of Despair}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=December 13, 2012 |title=The racist roots of 'right to work' laws |url=http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/the-racist-roots-of-right-to-work-laws.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150504222400/http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/the-racist-roots-of-right-to-work-laws.html |archive-date=May 4, 2015 |access-date=May 2, 2015 |website=Southernstudies.org}}</ref><ref name="pando" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Muse |first=Vance |year=1986 |title=Making Peace with Grandfather |journal=Texas Monthly |volume=14 |issue=2 |page=142}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |id={{ProQuest|1370880390}} |last1=Mirer |first1=Jeanne |title=Right-to-work laws: History and fightback |journal=National Lawyers Guild Review |volume=70 |issue=1 |date=Spring 2013 |pages=30–40 }}</ref>

According to ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'', right-to-work laws are derived from legislation forbidding unions from forcing strikes on workers, as well as from legal principles such as [[freedom of contract]], which sought to prevent passage of laws regulating workplace conditions.<ref>{{cite news |last=Palmer |first=Brian |date=December 12, 2012 |title=Why Are Anti-Union Laws Called "Right To Work"? |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/right_to_work_laws_why_do_union_busters_use_the_orwellian_phrase_right_to.html |work=Slate |access-date=February 11, 2018}}</ref>

===Wagner Act (1935)===
The [[National Labor Relations Act]], generally known as the Wagner Act, was passed in 1935 as part of President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s "[[Second New Deal]]". Among other things, the act provided that a company could lawfully agree to be any of the following:
* A [[closed shop]], in which employees must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under a closed shop, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, was required to be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
* A [[union shop]], which allows for hiring non-union employees, provided that the employees then join the union within a certain period.
* An [[agency shop]], in which employees must pay the equivalent of the cost of union representation, but need not formally join the union.
* An [[open shop]], in which an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union or be fired for joining the union.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sojdN0hrku0C&pg=PT67|title=American Labor, Congress, and the Welfare State, 1935-2010|last=Roof|first=Tracy|page=73|publisher=JHU Press|year=2011|isbn=9781421400877}}</ref>

The act tasked the [[National Labor Relations Board]], which had existed since 1933, with overseeing the rules.

===Taft–Hartley Act (1947)===
In 1947, the [[U.S. Congress]] passed the [[Labor Management Relations Act of 1947]], generally known as the Taft–Hartley Act, over President [[Harry S. Truman]]'s veto. The act repealed some parts of the Wagner Act, including outlawing the closed shop. Section 14(b) of the Taft–Hartley Act also authorizes individual states (but not [[local government]]s, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Any state law that outlaws such arrangements is known as a ''right-to-work state''.

===Current status===
The federal government operates under [[open shop]] rules nationwide, but many of its employees are represented by unions. Unions that represent professional athletes have written contracts that include particular representation provisions (such as in the [[National Football League]]),<ref>[http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012]: Art. V, Sec. 1.</ref> but their application is limited to "wherever and whenever legal," as the Supreme Court has clearly held that the application of a right-to-work law is determined by the employee's "predominant job situs".<ref>''Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp.'', 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.).</ref> Players on professional sports teams in states with right-to-work laws are thus subject to those laws and cannot be required to pay any portion of union dues as a condition of continued employment.<ref>''Orr v. National Football League Players Ass'n'', 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).</ref>

==Support and Opposition==

===Supporters===
====Freedom of association====
Besides the Supreme Court, other proponents of right-to-work laws also point to the [[U.S.  Constitution]] and the right to [[freedom of association]]. They argue that workers should both be free to join unions or to refrain, and thus, sometimes refer to states without right-to-work laws as forced unionism states. These proponents argue that by being forced into a collective bargain, what the majoritarian unions call a fair share of collective bargaining costs, is actually financial coercion and a violation of [[freedom of choice]]. An opponent to the union bargain is forced to financially support an organization for which they did not vote in order to receive monopoly representation for which they have no choice.<ref name="stopteacherstrikes_201211">{{cite web|url=http://www.stopteacherstrikes.org/Forced_Unionism.php|title=Right-to-Work vs Forced Unionism|publisher=StopTeacherStrikes, Inc.|access-date=November 14, 2012|author=Campbell, Simon|quote=Fair share is compulsory dues. A non-union employee is forced to financially support an organization they did not vote for, in order to receive monopoly representation they have no choice over. It is financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. Money is forcibly withheld from non-union employees' paychecks and sent to a private organization. When an agency-shop agreement exists in a school district or county, every employee must pay dues to the union as a condition of their employment. They must pay-up or leave. Should anyone's ability to get or keep a job depend on whether they pay dues to a union? Non-union teachers have struggled in court to try and stop their forced dues from being used for political activity by the union.}}</ref>{{cn|date=June 2024}}

The [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] discourages the joining of unions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://perspectives.adventist.org/en/questions-answers/questions/go/2016-06-13/what-is-the-adventist-churchs-stance-on-trade-unions/|title=What is the Adventist Church's stance on trade unions?|date=October 4, 2016|website=perspectives.adventist.org|language=en|access-date=November 25, 2016}}<br />{{Cite news|url=http://gleanernow.com/feature/adventist-labor-unions|title=Adventist Labor Unions|first=Diana|last=Justice|date=June 1, 2003|newspaper=GleanerNow|access-date=November 25, 2016}}<br />{{cite web|url=https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=EGWLetter&bookCode=Lt26-1903&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=1&paragraphnumber=5&QUERY=unions&resultId=10|title=Lt 26, 1903 - Ellen G. White Writings|website=text.egwwritings.org|access-date=November 25, 2016}}</ref> citing the writings of [[Ellen G. White|Ellen White]], one of the church's founders, and what writer Diana Justice calls the "loss of free will" that occurs when a person joins a labor union.

====Unfairness====
Proponents such as the [[Mackinac Center for Public Policy]] contend that it is unfair that unions can require new and existing employees to either join the union or pay fees for collective bargaining expenses as a condition of employment under [[union security agreement]] contracts.<ref>{{cite web|last=Rae|first=La|url=http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1395|title=Improvement #3: Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center&#93;|publisher=Mackinac.org|date=August 1, 1998|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref> Other proponents contend that unions may still be needed in new and growing sectors of the economy, for example the voluntary and third party sectors, to assure adequate benefits for new immigrant, part-time aides such as the [[direct support professional]] workforce.

====Political contributions====
Right-to-work proponents, including the [[Center for Union Facts]], contend that political contributions made by unions are not representative of the union workers.<ref>{{cite web|title=Use of Dues for Politics|url=https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/|website=Center for Union Facts|access-date=May 4, 2016}}</ref> The agency shop portion of this had previously been contested with support of [[National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation]] in ''[[Communications Workers of America v. Beck]]'', resulting in "Beck rights" preventing agency fees from being used for expenses outside of collective bargaining if the non-union worker notifies the union of their objection.<ref>{{cite web|title=How do I cut off the use of my dues for politics and other nonbargaining activities?|url=http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_4_p.htm|website=National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation|access-date=May 4, 2016}}</ref> The right to challenge the fees must include the right to have it heard by an impartial fact finder.<ref name="Gregory">{{cite journal|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/prvw24&div=93&id=&page=|first1=David L.|year=1997–1998 |last1=Gregory|volume=1997−1998 |journal=Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. |title=Contesting Union-Imposed Fees: Must Arbitration Precede Litigation (97-428)|page=392|access-date=May 19, 2016}}<br />Chicago Local Teachers Union v Hudson 475 U.S. 292. 310 (1986)</ref> ''Beck'' applies only to unions in the private sector, given agency fees were struck down for public-sector unions in ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]'' in 2018.

===Opposition===

====Free riders====
Opponents, such as [[Richard Kahlenberg]],<ref name="Botsch_SCGP">[http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/grs/SCCEP/Articles/interest_groups_in_south_carolin.htm "The South Carolina Governance Project&nbsp;— Interest Groups in South Carolina,"] ''Center for Governmental Services, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, [[University of South Carolina]]'', Accessed July 6, 2007.<br />{{cite web|last=Dinan|first=Elizabeth|url=http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110114/NEWS/101140396/-1/NEWSMAP|title=N.H. Rep. proposes right to work law|publisher=Seacoast Online|date=January 14, 2011|access-date=December 11, 2012}}</ref><ref name=Greenhouse>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html?pagewanted=2|work=The New York Times|first=Steven|last=Greenhouse|title=States Seek Laws to Curb Power of Unions|date=January 3, 2011}}</ref> have argued that a right-to-work law "gives employees the right to be [[Free-rider problem|free riders]]—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it."<ref name=civil>{{cite magazine |title=Right to Work" Isn't a Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/111055/right-work-isnt-civil-right-unionizing-should-be |first1=Richard D.|last1=Kahlenberg|first2=Moshe Z.|last2=Marvit|magazine=The New Republic|date=December 13, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Gould_Shierholz">{{cite web|url=http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf|author1=Gould, Elise|author2=Shierholz, Heidi|title=The Compensation penalty of "right-to-work" laws"|year=2011|access-date=December 11, 2012}}</ref> Benefits that the dissenting union members receive, despite not paying dues, also include representation during arbitration proceedings.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2018/04/19/right-to-work-or-right-to-free-ride/|title=Right-to-Work or Right-to-Free Ride?|first=Francis|last=Capria|date=April 19, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Parenti |first=Michael |year=2010 |orig-date=1974 |title=Democracy for the Few |edition=9th |publisher=Wadsworth Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-495-91126-5 |page=154}} Parenti notes that right-to-work laws "allow anti-union workers in a firm to enjoy the same wages and benefits that the union negotiates on behalf of its dues-paying members. The union is also required to defend the nonunion workers in grievances with management. This freeloading constitutes a drain on union resources."</ref> In ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education|Abood v. Detroit BoE]]'', the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] permitted public-sector unions to charge non-members [[Agency shop|agency fees]] so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted not to be a member, as long as these fees are not spent on the union's political or ideological agenda. This decision was reversed, however, in ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]'', with the Supreme Court ruling that such fees violate the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] in the case of public-sector unions, arguing that all bargaining by a public-sector union can be considered political activity.

====Restricted freedom of contract and association====
Opponents argue that right-to-work laws restrict [[freedom of association]], and limit the sorts of agreements that individuals acting collectively can make with their employer by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include fair share fees. They also argue that American law imposes a [[duty of fair representation]] on unions, so non-members in right-to-work states can force unions to provide grievance services without compensation that are paid by union members.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/employer-union-rights-and-obligations|title=Employer/Union Rights and Obligations|publisher=National Labor Relations Board}}</ref> Kahlenberg and Marvit also argue that, at least in efforts to pass a right-to-work law in Michigan, excluding police and firefighter unions—traditionally less hostile to Republicans—from the law caused some to question claims that the law was simply an effort to improve Michigan's businesses climate, not to seek partisan advantage.<ref name=civil/>

In December 2012, [[Libertarianism in the United States|libertarian]] writer [[J. D. Tuccille]] wrote in ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'': "I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate [[freedom of contract]] and [[Freedom of association|association]]. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members."<ref>{{cite web|first=J.&nbsp;D.|last=Tuccille|url=http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/12/when-right-to-work-is-wrong-and-un-liber|title=When Right-To-Work Is Wrong and Un-Libertarian - Hit & Run|website=Reason.com|date=December 12, 2012|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>

==Studies of economic effect==
Many studies of the effect of right-to-work laws exist but they find substantially different results. Studies have found both "some positive effect on job growth" and no effect.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/studies-mixed-on-right-to-works-impact|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213120316/http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/studies-mixed-on-right-to-works-impact|archive-date=December 13, 2012|title=Studies mixed on right-to-work's impact|date=December 12, 2012|first=Susan|last=Samples|publisher=[[WOOD-TV]]}}</ref> A 2019 paper in the ''[[American Economic Review]]'' by economists from [[MIT]], [[Stanford]], and the [[U.S. Census Bureau]], which surveyed 35,000 U.S. manufacturing plants, found that "the business environment, as measured by right-to-work laws, boosts incentive management practices."<ref>{{cite journal|title=What Drives Differences in Management|journal=American Economic Review|volume=109|number=5|date=May 2019|publisher=American Economic Association|doi=10.1257/aer.20170491|s2cid=159059890|doi-access=free|hdl=1721.1/136187|hdl-access=free}}</ref> According to a 2020 study published in the ''[[American Journal of Sociology]]'', right-to-work laws lead to greater [[economic inequality]] by indirectly reducing the power of labor unions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=VanHeuvelen|first=Tom|date=March 1, 2020|title=The Right to Work, Power Resources, and Economic Inequality|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=125|issue=5|pages=1255–1302|doi=10.1086/708067|s2cid=219517711|issn=0002-9602|url=http://osf.io/7qb56/|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Looking at the growth of states in the Southeast following World War II, economist [[Timothy J. Bartik|Tim Bartik]] says that while these states have right-to-work laws, they have also benefited from "factors like the widespread use of air conditioning and different modes of transportation that helped decentralize manufacturing."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wmuk.org/post/upjohn-institute-economist-right-work-laws|title=Upjohn Institute economist on right to work laws|first=Gordon|last=Evans|publisher=WMUK|date=December 10, 2012|access-date=February 26, 2017}}</ref>

Economist Thomas Holmes argues that it is difficult to analyze right-to-work laws by comparing states because of other similarities between states that have passed these laws. For instance, right-to-work states often have some strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws.<ref name="Holmes">{{cite journal|doi=10.1086/250026|title=The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders|year=1998|last1=Holmes|first1=Thomas J.|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=106|issue=4|pages=667–705}}</ref> Holmes compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws, thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate. He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26% greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.<ref>{{cite news|last=Barro|first=Robert|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704150604576166011983939364|title=Opinion: Unions vs. the Right to Work|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=February 28, 2011|access-date=December 11, 2012}}</ref> Given the study design, Holmes writes that "my results do not say that it is right-to-work laws that matter, but rather that the 'pro-business package' offered by right-to-work states seems to matter."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Holmes|first=Thomas|year=2000|url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n1/holmes.pdf|title=The Location of Industry: Do States' Policies Matter?|url-status=dead|journal=Regulation|volume=50|issue=1|pages=47–50|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170211093106/https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/holmes.pdf|archive-date=February 11, 2017|access-date=November 25, 2022|via=Cato Institute}}</ref> Moreover, as noted by [[Kevin Drum]] and others,<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Kilgore |first=Ed |date=February 28, 2011 |title=Dixie Madison |magazine=The New Republic |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/84170/republicans-wisconsin-labor-unions-south |access-date=November 25, 2022 |issn=0028-6583}}</ref> this result may reflect business relocation rather than an overall enhancement of economic growth since, as Drum writes, "businesses prefer locating in states where costs are low and rules are lax".<ref>{{cite web|last=Drum|first=Kevin|date=February 28, 2011|url=https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/unions-and-growth|title=Unions and Growth|website=Mother Jones|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>

==Polling==
In January 2012, in the immediate aftermath of passage of Indiana's right-to-work law, a [[Rasmussen Reports]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/405965-pollster-rasmussen-research-has-a-pro-gop-bias|title = Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias|date = September 10, 2018}}</ref> telephone survey found that 74% of likely voters disagreed with the question "Should workers who do not belong to a union be required by law to pay union dues if the company they work for is unionized?" but found that "most also don't think a non-union worker should enjoy benefits negotiated by the union."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/january_2012/74_favor_right_to_work_law_eliminating_mandatory_union_dues|title=74% Favor Right-to-Work Law Eliminating Mandatory Union Dues - Rasmussen Reports™|publisher=Rasmussenreports.com|date=January 31, 2012|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>

In January through March 2013, 43% of those polled believed that the law would help Michigan's economy, while 41% believed that it would hurt.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/03/poll_michigan_evenly_divided_o.html|title=Poll: Michigan evenly divided on right-to-work law|date=April 2013|publisher=MLive.com|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://ippsr.msu.edu/survey-research/state-state-survey-soss/soss-data/soss-64-winter-2013|title=SOSS 64|publisher=Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research|date=Winter 2013|access-date=September 22, 2018}}</ref>

==Political support==
In 2012, President [[Barack Obama]] opposed right-to-work legislation in Michigan.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/obama_criticizes_michigan_right_to_work_bills/|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130103100730/https://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/obama_criticizes_michigan_right_to_work_bills/|archive-date = January 3, 2013|title = Obama criticizes Michigan right-to-work bills|date = December 11, 2012}}</ref> In 2017, Republican members of Congress introduced legislation for a national right-to-work law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-pursue-national-right-to-work-law-while-they-hold-the-reins-in-washington_n_5891fb30e4b0522c7d3e354d|title = Republicans Want to Pass a Federal Right-To-Work Law|date = February 2017}}</ref>

==U.S. states with right-to-work laws==
[[File:Right to Work states.svg|thumb|400px|right|{{legend|#008080|Right-to-work law}}{{legend|#d3d3d3|No right-to-work law}}]]
As of May 2024, the following 26 states have right-to-work laws:<ref name=RTW_states_list >{{ cite web | url=https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/ | title=Right To Work States Timeline | work=National Right To Work Committee | access-date=August 26, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710062937/https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/ | archive-date=July 10, 2018 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=NPR_1 >{{ cite news | url=https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636568530/missouri-blocks-right-to-work-law | title=Missouri Blocks Right-To-Work Law | last=Neuman | first=Scott | newspaper=[[NPR]] | date=August 8, 2018 | access-date=August 26, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827182516/https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636568530/missouri-blocks-right-to-work-law | archive-date=August 27, 2018 | url-status=live | quote=Currently, 27 states and Guam have laws allowing employees in private-sector unionized workplaces to opt out of union membership and union fees. }}</ref>
{{columns-list|
* [[Alabama]] (adopted 1953, [[Constitution of Alabama|Constitution]] 2016)
* [[Arizona]] ([[Constitution of Arizona|Constitution]], adopted 1946)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nrtw.org/c/azrtwlaw.htm|title=Right to Work Laws: Arizona &#124; National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation|publisher=Nrtw.org|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>
* [[Arkansas]] ([[Constitution of Arkansas|Constitution]], adopted 1947)
* [[Florida]] ([[Constitution of Florida|Constitution]], adopted 1944, revised 1968)<ref>{{cite web|title=Florida Constitution|url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/Index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A1S06|website=The Florida Legislature|access-date=July 11, 2014}}<br />{{cite web|url=http://www.nrtw.org/c/flrtwlaw.htm|title=Right to Work States: Florida &#124; National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation|publisher=Nrtw.org|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>
* [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] (adopted 1947)
* [[Idaho]] (adopted 1985)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wines|first=William A.|date=1988|title=An Analysis of the 1986 Right-to-Work Referendum in Idaho|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/labljo39&id=622&div=&collection=|journal=Labor Law Journal|volume=39|pages=622}}</ref>
* [[Indiana]]<ref name="indystar.com">{{cite news|title=Indiana Gov. Daniels signs 'right to work' bill; protest winds through Super Bowl Village|date=February 1, 2012|first1=Mary Beth|last1=Schneider|first2=Chris|last2=Sikich|url=http://www.indystar.com/article/20120201/NEWS05/120201020/Daniels-signs-hard-fought-right-work-measure|newspaper=[[The Indianapolis Star]]|access-date=February 1, 2012}}</ref> (adopted 2012)
* [[Iowa]] (adopted 1947)
* [[Kansas]] ([[Wyandotte Constitution|Constitution]], adopted 1958)
* [[Kentucky]] (adopted 2017)
* [[Louisiana]] (adopted 1976)
* [[Mississippi]] ([[Constitution of Mississippi|Constitution]], adopted 1954)
* [[Nebraska]] ([[Nebraska#Law and government|Constitution]] and statute, adopted 1946)
* [[Nevada]] (adopted 1951)
* [[North Carolina]] (adopted 1947)
* [[North Dakota]] (adopted 1947)
* [[Oklahoma]] ([[Constitution of Oklahoma|Constitution]], adopted 2001)
* [[South Carolina]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t41c007.php|title=South Carolina Code of Laws § 41-7-10}}</ref> (adopted 1954)
* [[South Dakota]] (adopted 1946)
* [[Tennessee]] (adopted 1947, [[Constitution of Tennessee|Constitution]] 2022)
* [[Texas]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://nrtwc.org/facts/state-right-to-work-timeline-2016/|title=State Right-to-Work Timeline|publisher=National Right to Work Committee|access-date=October 29, 2017}}<br />{{cite web|url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LA/htm/LA.101.htm|title=LABOR CODE CHAPTER 101. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS|publisher=Statutes.legis.state.tx.us|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref> (adopted 1947, revised 1993)
* [[Utah]] (adopted 1955)
* [[Virginia]] (adopted 1947)
* [[West Virginia]] (adopted 2016)<ref name=WP_WV >{{ cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/amid-rancourous-debate-west-virginia-sets-right-to-work-bill-on-path-to-near-certain-passage | title=West Virginia House passes right-to-work bill after harsh debate | last=DePillis | first=Lydia | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=February 4, 2016 | access-date=July 24, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324162622/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/amid-rancourous-debate-west-virginia-sets-right-to-work-bill-on-path-to-near-certain-passage/ | archive-date=March 24, 2016 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=West Virginia Supreme Court upholds 'right-to-work' law|url=https://apnews.com/58ab75ea91c6bb55069561bfbfd728fd|date=April 21, 2020|website=AP NEWS|access-date=May 1, 2020}}</ref>
* [[Wisconsin]] (adopted 2015)
* [[Wyoming]] (adopted 1963)
}}
The territory of [[Guam]] also has right-to-work laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nrtw.org/c/guamrtwlaw.htm|title=Right to Work States: Guam &#124; National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation|publisher=Nrtw.org|date=May 15, 2000|access-date=May 2, 2015}}</ref>

[[Ohio]] allows employees to opt out from joining a union, but unions are allowed to charge a typically smaller fee for employees that opted out.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://statelaws.findlaw.com/ohio-law/ohio-right-to-work-laws.html | quote=Although Ohio is part of America's "Rust Belt," with a long history of labor organizations, the state has adopted a very limited right-to-work law. Specifically, the law states that union membership or non-membership employment conditions are "contrary to public policy and void." So employees are not required to join a union.| title=Ohio Right to Work Laws}}</ref>

===Local or repealed laws===
Some states had right-to-work laws in the past, but repealed them or had them declared invalid. There are also some counties and municipalities located in states without right-to-work laws that have passed local laws to ban union security agreements.

====Delaware====
[[Seaford, Delaware|Seaford]] passed a right-to-work ordinance in 2018, despite the State Solicitor disputing the authority of local governments to do so under Delaware law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wboc.com/story/37279230/city-of-seaford-formally-announces-right-to-work-ordinance|title=City of Seaford Formally Announces "Right to Work" Ordinance|last=Overturf|first=Madeleine|website=[[WBOC-TV]]|date=January 16, 2018 |language=en|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/delaware-ag-sussex-cannot-approve-right-to-work-law/873766001/ |title=Delaware AG: Sussex cannot approve right-to-work law |last=Goss |first=Scott |date=November 17, 2017 |website=[[Delaware Online]] |publisher=[[The News Journal]] |access-date=April 12, 2024 |quote=}}</ref> Later that year, the [[Delaware General Assembly]] blocked the municipal ordinance.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/delaware-ag-sussex-cannot-approve-right-to-work-law/873766001/ |title=Delaware Legislature passes bill to kill right-to-work in Sussex County |last=Goss |first=Scott |date=June 22, 2018 |website=Delaware Online |publisher=The News Journal |access-date=April 12, 2024 |quote=}}</ref>

====Illinois====
[[Lincolnshire, Illinois|Lincolnshire]] passed a local right-to-work ordinance, but it was struck down by the [[U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/appeals-court-decision-favors-labor-right-work-lincolnshire-unions/|title=Appeals court decision favors labor|work=Chicago Sun-Times|date=September 30, 2018|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref> An appeal to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] resulted in the case being [[Vacated judgment|vacated]] as being [[Mootness|moot]] because in the intervening period Illinois had passed the Illinois Collective Bargaining Freedom Act to invalidate such local ordinances.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1070.html|title=Docket for 18-1070|publisher=Supreme Court of the United States|access-date=November 25, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3937&ChapterID=68|title=820 ILCS 12/ Collective Bargaining Freedom Act.|publisher=Illinois General Assembly|access-date=November 25, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-jb-pritzker-signs-right-to-work-zone-ban-20190412-story.html|title=In yet another rebuke to his Republican predecessor, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs bill banning local 'right-to-work' zones|last=Petrella|first=Dan|work=Chicago Tribune|access-date=February 5, 2020}}</ref>

In a 2022 [[2022 Illinois elections#Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment|referendum]], voters in Illinois approved a state constitutional amendment establishing a right to [[collective bargaining]]. The amendment also prevents any future state legislature or local government from passing a right-to-work law.<ref>{{cite web |last=O'Connor |first=John |date=2022-11-16 |title=Illinois voters approve collective bargaining amendment |url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Illinois-voters-approve-collective-bargaining-17587034.php |access-date=2022-11-18 |agency=Associated Press|website=SF Gate }}</ref>

====Indiana====
Before its passage in 2012, the Republican-controlled [[Indiana General Assembly]] passed a right-to-work bill in 1957, which led to the Democratic takeover of Indiana's Governor's Mansion and General Assembly in the coming elections, and eventually, the new Democratic-controlled legislature repealing the right-to-work law in 1965.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/nov/26/no-headline---ev_righttowork/|title=The past is present in Right to Work debate|last=Bradner|first=Eric|date=November 26, 2011|work=[[Evansville Courier & Press]]|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128143923/http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/nov/26/no-headline---ev_righttowork/|archive-date=November 28, 2011}}</ref> Right-to-work was subsequently reenacted in 2012.<ref name="indystar.com" />

==== Kentucky ====
On November 18, 2016, the [[U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]] upheld the right of local governments to enact local right-to-work laws in [[Kentucky]]. Kentucky had 12 local ordinances. A statewide law was subsequently enacted in 2017.<ref>{{cite magazine|date=November 21, 2016|title=Appeals Court Upholds Local Right-to-Work Laws in Kentucky and Ohio|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442372/kentucky-right-work-law-sixth-circuit-upholds-local-ordinances|magazine=National Review|access-date=December 8, 2016}}</ref>

==== Michigan ====
Michigan adopted a right-to-work bill in 2012.<ref name="bbc.co.uk">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20682190|work=BBC News|title=Michigan passes 'right-to-work' legislation|date=December 11, 2012}}</ref> After Democrats gained a [[Government trifecta|trifecta]] in 2023, the legislature passed a bill repealing the right-to-work law, which was subsequently signed into law by Governor [[Gretchen Whitmer]] and took effect in 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Whitmer repeals right-to-work, reinstates prevailing wage in Michigan |url=https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/24/michigan-right-to-work-prevailing-wage-law-gretchen-whitmer/70042340007/ |access-date=2023-03-24 |website=Detroit Free Press |language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Missouri ====
The [[Missouri General Assembly|legislature]] passed a right-to-work bill in 2017, but the law was defeated in a 2018 [[2018 Missouri Proposition A|referendum]] before it could take effect.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/business/economy/missouri-labor-right-to-work.html|title=Labor Gains Victory as Missouri Voters Reject Anti-Union Law|date=August 7, 2018|access-date=August 7, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://fox2now.com/2018/08/07/right-to-work-overturned-as-prop-a-fails/|title=Right-to-work overturned as Prop A fails|author=Kevin S. Held|date=August 7, 2018|work=[[KTVI]]|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/missouri-right-to-work-vote/index.html/|title=Unions notch win: Deep-red Missouri rejects right-to-work law - CNNPolitics|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810105132/https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/missouri-right-to-work-vote/index.html|archive-date=August 10, 2018|access-date=January 30, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Missouri voters reject right-to-work, McCulloch loses, Stenger Wins |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/08/07/missouri-voters-reject-right-to-work.html|website=www.bizjournals.com|access-date=November 25, 2019}}</ref>

====New Hampshire====
[[New Hampshire]] adopted a right-to-work bill in 1947, but it was repealed in 1949 by the [[New Hampshire General Court|state legislature]] and [[Governor of New Hampshire|governor]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://nhlabornews.com/2017/01/a-conservatives-guide-to-the-right-to-work-bill/|title=A Conservative's Guide to the 'Right to Work' Bill|date=January 9, 2017|work=NH LABOR NEWS|access-date=November 6, 2017|language=en-US}}</ref>

In 2017, a proposed right to work bill was defeated in the [[New Hampshire House of Representatives]] 200–177.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.concordmonitor.com/Right-to-work-updates-on-house-vote-day-8137054 |title=Right to work fails in NH House, 200-177|date=February 16, 2017|work=Concord Monitor|access-date=October 14, 2020|language=en-US}}</ref> In 2021, the same bill was reintroduced but again defeated in the House of Representatives 199–175.<ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-house-rejects-buries-right-to-work-bill-on-key-roll-call-of-199-175/36623777|title=NH House rejects, buries right-to-work bill on key roll call of 199-175|date=June 3, 2021|work=WMUR|access-date=June 3, 2021|language=en-US}}</ref>

==== New Mexico ====
New Mexico law previously did not explicitly prohibit nor allow mandatory union membership as a condition of employment at the statewide level, thereby leaving it up to local jurisdictions to establish their own right-to-work policies. Several counties, notably [[Chaves County, New Mexico|Chaves]], [[Eddy County, New Mexico|Eddy]], [[Lea County, New Mexico|Lea]], [[Lincoln County, New Mexico|Lincoln]], [[McKinley County, New Mexico|McKinley]], [[Otero County, New Mexico|Otero]], [[Roosevelt County, New Mexico|Roosevelt]], [[Sandoval County, New Mexico|Sandoval]], [[San Juan County, New Mexico|San Juan]], and [[Sierra County, New Mexico|Sierra]] counties, in addition to [[Ruidoso, New Mexico|Ruidoso village]] adopted such laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nmpoliticalreport.com/2018/04/25/new-right-to-work-tactic-one-piece-at-time/|title=New right-to-work tactic: One piece at time|date=April 25, 2018|access-date=November 17, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first=Brenna |last=Goth |url=https://www.bna.com/local-righttowork-rules-n73014482667/|title=Local Right-to-Work Rules Sweep New Mexico Counties|date=September 20, 2018|website=www.bna.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180920200019/https://www.bna.com/local-righttowork-rules-n73014482667/|archive-date=September 20, 2018|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abqjournal.com/1274482/bill-would-ban-local-righttowork-laws.html|title=Bill would ban local 'right-to-work' laws|last=Chief|first=Dan Boyd {{!}} Journal Capitol Bureau|website=www.abqjournal.com|date=January 30, 2019|language=en-US|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://americansforprosperity.org/afp-nm-hang-ten/|title=AFP-NM: Hang Ten|date=January 22, 2019|website=Americans for Prosperity|language=en-US|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://americansforprosperity.org/afp-mckinley-moves-on-right-to-work/|title=AFP: McKinley Moves on Right-to-Work|date=January 4, 2019|website=Americans for Prosperity|language=en-US|access-date=March 30, 2019}}</ref> In 2019, the [[New Mexico Legislature]] approved legislation that prohibits local right-to-work laws and further states that union membership and the payment of union dues may be required as a condition of employment in workplaces subject to a collective bargaining agreement; it was signed by governor [[Michelle Lujan Grisham]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/03/29/lujan-grisham-signs-bill-invalidating-counties-right-to-work-laws/|title=Lujan Grisham signs bill invalidating counties' right-to-work laws|date=March 28, 2019|access-date=March 29, 2019}}</ref> In 2020, New Mexico's legislature passed House Bill 364 that authorizes and promotes the use of [[card check]] protocols for workers considering organizing into a labor union.<ref>[https://inthesetimes.com/article/new-mexico-workers-rights-victory-publicsector-union The Stunning Workers' Victory in New Mexico That You Haven't Heard About, The SE Times, December 22, 2020]</ref> New Mexico does not currently require [[Project Labor Agreement]]s for state-sponsored projects, but some local jurisdictions (notably [[Bernalillo County]] and the [[Albuquerque, New Mexico|City of Albuquerque]]) have ordinances in place requiring Project Labor Agreements for locally-sponsored projects that exceed specified dollar-value thresholds.<ref>[https://www.abc.org/News-Media/Newsline/entryid/18165/community-workforce-agreement-passed-in-new-mexico-s-largest-county-abc-advocates-repeal Community Workforce Agreement Passed in New Mexico’s Largest County; ABC Advocates Repeal Associated Builders and Contractors, September 23, 2020]</ref><ref>[https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/albuquerque/latest/albuquerque_nm/0-0-0-3664 Albuquerque Code of Ordinances §5-5-11 (H) Project Labor Agreements, Retrieved April 4, 2022]</ref>

==See also==
* [[At-will employment]]
* [[Labor unions in the United States]]
* [[Union affiliation by U.S. state]]
* [[United States labor law]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite journal
|last=Garcia
|first=R.&nbsp;J.
|year=2019
|title=Right-to-Work Laws: Ideology and Impact
|journal=[[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]]
|volume=15
|issue=1
|pages=509–519
|doi=10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951
|doi-access=free
|issn=1550-3631
}}

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|right to work}}
 <!-- these need to be links that are encyclopedic, not just relevant links -->

{{Economy of the United States}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Right-To-Work Law}}
[[Category:United States labor law]]
[[Category:Labor relations in the United States]]
[[Category:Right-to-work law| ]]
[[Category:Trade union law]]