OPINION

'Right to work' is a misnomer

These laws actually provide the 'right to free ride' — depriving unions of a justifiable funding mechanism.

, The National Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

These laws actually provide the 'right to free ride' — depriving unions of a justifiable funding mechanism.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Andrew Dhuey

    You make many reasonable points about the "free rider" problem, professor, but what about the conflict-of-interest problem where a worker is forced to pay dues to a union that is largely working against his/her personal interests? This is far from a hypothetical concern. A substantial minority of public school teachers favor merit pay and they reasonably believe they would personally benefit from it, yet they must pay dues to unions that place a high priority on fighting any and all merit pay proposals.

    Similarly, in the recent Hostess strike we saw a union do a pretty good job of protecting the interests of 80% of its members, but at the cost of unemployment for the 20% who worked at Hostess (even the Teamsters had publicly critical words for the BCTGM union).

    I don't think it's fair to force a worker to pay dues to a union whose representation is more harmful than beneficial to that worker.

  • Suzy Pitbull

    In Louisiana, we call this right-to-work-for-less. Were it not for the federal labor laws, which apply to businesses involved in interstate commerce, there would be almost no labor law here. Our governor is giving away the tax store; we have employment-at-will. No wonder every dirty industry's moving down here!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202583322280

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.