Under the federal Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, businesses may not require union membership as a condition of employment. State right-to-work laws therefore permit people to work at a “union shop” without being a member of the union and without any requirement that they pay union dues or comply with union rules or actions (though some union contracts may require all employees, union or not, to help defray the costs of union representation). Employees who opt out of union membership are still protected by any collective bargaining agreement in force at their place of employment.
A study reported in The Digest, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, concluded that the enactment of right-to-work laws have had two consistent consequences in the five states that enacted right-to-work laws between 2011 and 2017: a reduction in union membership and a reduction in wages. The study, which looked at the impact in Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and West Virginia, found a 4% decline in union membership and a 1% decline in wages. Michigan subsequently repealed its right-to-work law in 2024.
Other studies, however, have produced mixed results, some finding that right-to-work laws lead to greater wage inequality and others finding that they promote business development and increase the number of jobs available to workers.
Proponents of right-to-work laws generally contend that such provisions:
Supporters say that allowing workers to choose whether or not to belong to a union allows them to follow their personal beliefs without regard to the directives of the union and without fear of termination or other reprisals, particularly if they don’t agree with the political leanings or positions of union leadership. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1st Amendment rights of a public sector employee in 2018, ruling that requiring him to pay union dues when he was not a member violated his constitutional rights.
Proponents also contend that right-to-work laws ultimately benefit workers by creating more economic opportunities. They argue that entrepreneurs are more likely to take risks in creating or building businesses when they have the freedom to determine wages and benefits. The increased entrepreneurship leads to the creation of more jobs, which is in the best interests of workers.
Advocates of right-to-work laws also allege that right-to-work laws make unions more effective, essentially compelling the unions to prove their value. This minimizes the risk of mismanagement or internal abuse of power.
Opponents contend that the clear effect of right-to-work laws is the diminishment of worker rights and benefits. They point to the long history of management abuses of labor and emphasize the role of unions in bringing about many of the protections that are common in the contemporary workplace. Because right-to-work laws consistently lead to reduced union membership, they necessarily contribute to the weakening of union influence and the reduced rights of workers. Those losses are most dramatically felt with respect to wages and safety in the workplace.