Why “right to work” means anti-union

“Right to work” laws argue that they insure workers the “freedom” to sell their labor, without interference from meddling entities like, for instance, labor unions.

This week, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed such a law. As Slate, further explains, conservatives “have been pressing for so-called “right to work” laws across the Midwest. Major labor groups almost uniformly oppose these bills, so why do we call them “right to work” laws?

Because they allow you to work through a strike. Commentator and lexicographer William Safire chronicled the origins of the phrase “right to work” in his Political Dictionary. A 1912 Bernard Partridge cartoon depicted an employer telling a striking worker, “I can’t make you work if you won’t; but if this man wants to, I can make you let him. And I will.” By the 1930s, the phrase “right to work” was common in American political parlance, and it was meant to draw a contrast to labor’s claim of a right to strike.

Former NAACP labor secretary Herbert Hill argued that the phrase “right to work” derives from an earlier conservative catchphrase: “liberty of contract.” Around the turn of the 20th century, employers argued that workplace safety legislation was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of private citizens to make whatever agreements suited them. The Supreme Court bought into the argument, striking down a series of laws that mandated sanitation standards at factories and limited the number of hours a laborer could work per week in a dangerous job. After decades of rhetorical battering from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and threats from President Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court finally reversed its position in the 1930s.

 

For more, see: 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.