Spotlight: The 28 27 26 labor-states

Many the stories in The Union News come from among the 28 27 26 labor-states - so named because they conform to the objective of Progressive Era federal labor law - to promote private sector unionism and the welfare of labor organizations.
The term 'labor-state', in its own right, is a short form of the term 'forced-labor state'. The origin of the term is from union officials operating on the floor of state legislatures who are known to boast, "This state is owned by organized labor," or more succinctly, "Labor owns this state."

Labor-states are known in the law as "union shop" or "agency shop" states. They are also considered "compulsory or forced unionism states" because, according to federal statute, you must pay the union or your employer cannot allow you to work. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that non-members' fees must be reduced by the amount of a union's spending related to politics, such relief is generally ignored by labor-state unions.

State legislatures in the other 22 23 24 states have enacted laws opting out of the federally-mandated union workplace rule. The "Right to Work" states offer worker-choice about unionism.

Historical note: Voluntarism was a core, founding principle of unionism when the AFL (American Federation of Labor) incorporated in 1886. Having abandoned that tenet, unions now oppose right-to-work and favor forced-labor unionism.

Labor-states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Related post:
"UnionRefund.org Offers True Social Justice"


Anonymous said...

You claim: "[Labor-states] are also considered 'compulsory or forced unionism states' because, according to federal statute, you must pay the union or your employer cannot allow you to work."

This assertion is a blatant lie. There is no such federal (or state) statute. Union security agreements, when they exist, are voluntary agreements between workers and their employers. Naturally, anti-working-family types like you hate these voluntary agreements, because they help workers have access to strong, viable unions that can actually protect their members.

So what's a union-buster to do? Ban these voluntary agreements and claim they're protecting the "right to work." And oh yeah - don't forget to post misinformation on the web and hope no one calls you out for it.

Silence Dogood said...

The previous comment is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Union leaders will always strike over the 'union shop' requirement ... so in effect, employers will be extorted or shut down if they do not agree to 'union security'. Union bigs claim that such 'voluntary' arrangements do not constitute force. But when the U.S. Supreme Court holds, in Hobbs, that violence by unionists (but not by employers) in pursuit of their collective bargaining objectives is entirely legal and protected ... then the effect is the same as a mandate.


Prior to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by Congress over President Harry S. Truman's veto in 1947, unions and employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act could lawfully agree to a "closed shop," in which employees at unionized workplaces are required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under the law in effect before the Taft-Hartley amendments, 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, could also be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.

The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the "closed shop." The Act, however, permitted employers and unions to operate under a "union shop" rule, which required all new employees to join the union after a minimum period after their hire. Under "union shop" rules, employers are obliged to fire any employees who have avoided paying membership dues necessary to maintain membership in the union; however, the union cannot demand that the employer discharge an employee who has been expelled from membership for any other reason.

A similar arrangement to the “union shop” is the “agency shop,” under which employees must pay the equivalent of union dues, but need not formally join such union.

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act goes further and authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Under the "open shop" rule, an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she joins the union. In other words, the employee has the right to work, regardless of whether he or she is a member or financial contributor to such a union.

Anonymous said...

the author of this blog 28 labor states has s*it for brains. there is no such think as a labor state, most are right to work or have minimal unionism. union workers are the minority in the US.

Silence Dogood said...

There is such a term as 'labor state' and it is exactly as described in this post.

The term 'labor states' is in common usage. This quote is from the story "The Secret Ballot Protection Act: It's All About Mooching Campaign Contributions" By Pete Kotz, The Nashville Scene

"Yet Obama will have no choice but to push for card-check soon. He swept the labor states from Massachusetts to Minnesota, where unions remain the single largest influence in the Democratic Party."

ref: http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2009/02/the_secret_ballot_protection_a.php

Kimmie said...

First of all, the "labor states" are states that are "non right to work". The 28 states that were listed are NOT labor states, they are "right to work" states in which an employee CANNOT be required to join a union or pay for union membership. States such as New York, can be called a labor state because they are forced-unionism states. They are required to join a union as a condition of employment, usually under the private sector. Get your definitions straight! Your confusing the audience!

Kimmie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's not that confusing. There are a) 'Right to Work States' ... and b) 'Labor States'. If you are free to choose about union membership, then you live in a Right to Work State. If you are required to become a union member as a precondition of employment, then you live in a Labor State.

There are more Labor States (28) than Right To Work States (22).

Related Posts with Thumbnails