Staying on top of the latest HR terms and jargon can be a challenge in your field of expertise. We understand as an HR professional you’re always looking to expand your skills and knowledge, which is why we’ve compiled an extensive HR glossary.
The glossary is your go-to resource to help sharpen your acumen in this field. From commonly used HR words to more obscure Human Resources terms, the HR glossary covers it all. Whether you’re a seasoned pro or just starting out, our library is a handy tool to have in your arsenal.
Home » HR Glossary » Right to Work
A right-to-work state is one that has enacted laws prohibiting union security agreements between employers and labor unions. These laws protect an employee’s right to choose whether to participate in a labor union and prevent workers from being required to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Unlike the international human rights definition, U.S. right-to-work laws do not guarantee employment to job seekers but rather ensure workers can refrain from union membership.
In right-to-work states, union membership is entirely voluntary. Employees maintain the freedom to join unions if they wish, but employers cannot mandate membership as a prerequisite for hiring or continued employment. Furthermore, payment of union dues becomes optional – workers who choose not to join are not obligated to contribute financially, even when they benefit from union-negotiated contracts.
The legal foundation for right-to-work laws stems from the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which outlawed the “closed shop” arrangement that allowed hiring only union members. Section 14(b) of this act specifically authorizes individual states (though not local governments) to prohibit union shop and agency shop arrangements for employees working within their jurisdictions. Any state that exercises this authority is designated as a “right-to-work state.”
As of 2024, 26 states have implemented right-to-work laws. These states are primarily concentrated in the South, Midwest, and Mountain West regions of the country. The complete list includes: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
It’s important to note that right-to-work laws apply differently across sectors. While states can determine policies for private-sector employees through these laws, the landscape for public-sector employees changed significantly with the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. This decision essentially made every state a right-to-work state for public-sector unions by determining that government employees cannot be required to pay union dues or fees, even when benefiting from union representation.
Proponents of right-to-work laws argue these measures promote individual freedom and worker choice while potentially attracting businesses by reducing union restrictions. Conversely, critics maintain these laws weaken labor unions’ bargaining power, potentially leading to lower wages, reduced benefits, and diminished working conditions and job security.
Right-to-work laws do not prevent unions from forming or negotiating collective bargaining agreements. They simply prohibit mandatory union membership and dues payments. Businesses operating across multiple states must understand the different labor rules, particularly when they have locations in both right-to-work and non-right-to-work states.
The evolution of right-to-work laws in the United States spans nearly a century, developing through significant legislative acts and court decisions that have fundamentally shaped American labor relations.
Originally known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Wagner Act established the legal foundation for modern labor relations in America. Signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt, this legislation protected employees’ rights to create self-organized labor unions and required employers to engage in collective bargaining with these unions. The Act explicitly declared the policy of eliminating obstructions to commerce by encouraging collective bargaining and protecting workers’ freedom of association and self-organization.
Under the Wagner Act, employees gained specific rights to form and join labor organizations, bargain collectively through chosen representatives, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. Subsequently, the Act mandated that employers recognize unions and prohibited them from interfering with workers exercising these rights. Moreover, the legislation established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to resolve labor disputes and prevent unfair labor practices.
A critical aspect of the Wagner Act was that it permitted closed shops, where union membership was mandatory as a condition of employment. This arrangement effectively restricted employment to union members only, compelling employees to pay unions for representing their interests.
Following World War II, Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, which substantially amended the Wagner Act. President Harry Truman initially vetoed the bill, arguing it would be “unfair to the working people” and weaken unions’ collective bargaining power, yet Congress overrode his veto.
The Taft-Hartley Act fundamentally changed labor relations by:
Most importantly for right-to-work laws, Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act authorized individual states to prohibit union shops and agency shops within their jurisdictions. This provision became the legal foundation for states to enact right-to-work legislation, effectively allowing them to ban arrangements requiring union membership or dues payment as conditions of employment.
The landscape of labor relations changed again in 2018 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). This landmark decision declared that collecting mandatory agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The ruling effectively overturned the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision that had previously allowed such fees.
As a result of the Janus decision, government employees nationwide gained right-to-work protections regardless of state law. Public sector unions experienced immediate impacts – the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw agency-fee payers decline from 112,233 to 2,215 (a 98% decrease), while Service Employees International Union dropped from 104,501 to 5,812 (94% decrease).
Over the longer term, government union membership has continued to decline. From 2017 (pre-Janus) to 2022, public sector union membership in affected states fell by more than 60,000 despite increases in public employment. The percentage of unionized public sector workers dropped to 33.1% in 2022, down from 34.4% in 2017 – the lowest rate since the 1970s.
The geographical distribution of right-to-work legislation across the United States reflects varying regional approaches to labor policy and union influence. Currently, a total of 26 states maintain right-to-work laws, creating a patchwork of labor regulations that businesses and workers must navigate nationwide.
As of May 2024, the following 26 states have right-to-work laws:[45]”>As of 2024, the following states have enacted right-to-work legislation:
Historically, Southern and Western states adopted the majority of RTW laws during the mid-twentieth century. Alongside these states, the U.S. territory of Guam also maintains right-to-work laws.
The states that currently do not have right-to-work legislation include:
Additionally, Washington D.C. has not adopted right-to-work laws. Notably, no New England state has a right-to-work law, demonstrating the persistent unpopularity of such legislation in this region. Illinois took a significant step in 2022 by approving a state constitutional amendment establishing a right to collective bargaining, effectively preventing any future state legislature or local government from passing right-to-work legislation.
Michigan stands out as the first state in 58 years to repeal a right-to-work law. After adopting RTW in 2012, Michigan reversed course when Democrats gained a trifecta in 2023, passing legislation to repeal the right-to-work law. This repeal took effect in February 2024.
Indiana presents an interesting case with its oscillating stance on right-to-work legislation. The Republican-controlled Indiana General Assembly initially passed a right-to-work bill in 1957, but this led to Democratic takeover of Indiana’s government in subsequent elections. The new Democratic-controlled legislature then repealed the law in 1965. However, Republicans restored right-to-work in Indiana in 2012.
Missouri briefly enacted right-to-work legislation in 2017, yet voters overwhelmingly rejected the law in a 2018 referendum before it could take effect. Consequently, Missouri is not currently a right-to-work state.
New Hampshire has a complex history with right-to-work legislation. The state initially adopted a right-to-work bill in 1947 but repealed it in 1949. Recent attempts to reintroduce such legislation have been unsuccessful, with bills rejected at least seven times since 2010, including defeats in 2017 (200-177 vote) and 2021 (199-175 vote)[38].
How Right-to-Work Laws Affect Workers
Right-to-work legislation directly impacts employees’ workplace rights, benefits, and economic circumstances in several significant ways. First and foremost, these laws guarantee that workers cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. This fundamental aspect grants employees the freedom to choose whether they want to join labor unions rather than having membership mandated by their employer.
In practice, this worker choice creates both opportunities and challenges. According to research, when workers have the option to join unions, many choose not to pay dues while still benefiting from collective bargaining agreements. This phenomenon creates a “free rider” issue that opponents of right-to-work laws find problematic – employees who don’t contribute financially still receive the same negotiated benefits as dues-paying members.
The financial impact on workers in right-to-work states can be substantial. Critics maintain that employees in these states earn lower wages compared to workers in states without such legislation. Research shows that right-to-work states have 3.1% lower wages than non-right-to-work states. Simultaneously, employee benefits often diminish, with pension rates approximately 5% lower in right-to-work states.
Health benefits have likewise been affected. The decline of unions has corresponded with a reduction in health care coverage for workers. This trend is concerning as unions typically negotiate for comprehensive health benefits that benefit all employees regardless of membership status.
As such, workplace safety represents another area where right-to-work laws show measurable effects. Workers in these states are more likely to face unsafe conditions and extended hours. Union worksites are 19% less likely to have OSHA violations, yet right-to-work states demonstrate a 54% higher fatality rate in the workforce.
Nevertheless, recent studies have identified specific impacts on working hours. Using a stacked approach to difference-in-differences estimates, researchers found that right-to-work laws increased the share of workers working long hours by approximately 6%. These effects were more pronounced in heavily unionized sectors including construction, manufacturing, and transportation. Evidently, while non-standard work schedules increased in specific sectors like education and public administration, researchers found no significant overall increase across all industries.
Another key consideration is that at-will employment in right-to-work states leaves employees more vulnerable to termination. Under these conditions, employers can dismiss employees for any reason, at any time, without providing justification or facing legal liability.
For unions themselves, the financial implications are substantial. When workers opt out of paying dues, unions lose critical funding needed for advocacy campaigns. This reduction in resources often weakens unions’ collective bargaining power, potentially affecting their ability to negotiate effectively for all workers.
Consequently, while right-to-work laws provide individual workers with choice regarding union membership, they simultaneously create complex economic and workplace safety implications that continue to fuel debate among policymakers, economists, and labor advocates across the nation.
The debate surrounding right-to-work legislation polarizes stakeholders across economic, political, and social spheres. Proponents and critics alike present compelling arguments based on varied economic data and philosophical perspectives.
Advocates for right-to-work laws emphasize economic advantages and personal freedoms. According to research from the National Right to Work Committee, states with these laws maintain a higher standard of living. Families in right-to-work states enjoy higher after-tax income and increased spending capacity compared to residents in non-right-to-work states.
Economically, proponents point to Harvard research indicating that right-to-work states experience higher growth in manufacturing coupled with lower unemployment rates. These states demonstrate faster job growth for manufacturing positions, with research linking right-to-work laws to a 20% increase in manufacturing employment.
Regarding individual rights, supporters argue these laws fundamentally expand worker freedom by allowing employees to decide whether union representation serves their interests. The 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case exemplifies this principle – Mark Janus successfully argued that mandatory union fees violated his First Amendment rights when he disagreed with the union’s political positions.
Furthermore, advocates maintain that right-to-work laws create greater accountability in labor relations. Without guaranteed membership, unions must demonstrate their value to attract members. This competition, supporters argue, results in more effective unions that truly represent worker interests rather than relying on compulsory participation.
Opponents highlight several negative consequences of right-to-work legislation. Primarily, critics point to Economic Policy Institute findings that worker pay decreases by approximately 3.1% when right-to-work laws are implemented. This contributes to broader wage disparities, with research showing right-to-work states have consistently lower wages than non-right-to-work states.
Beyond compensation, critics raise significant workplace safety concerns. Right-to-work states experience a 54% higher workforce fatality rate. Union worksites are 19% less likely to incur OSHA violations, suggesting stronger union presence correlates with safer conditions.
Critics furthermore identify the “free rider” problem as fundamentally unfair – workers who opt out of union dues still receive identical benefits from collective bargaining efforts. This dynamic creates financial strain on unions, reducing resources needed for effective advocacy campaigns.
Finally, opponents argue these laws increase worker vulnerability within at-will employment contexts. Without strong union protection, employees face potential termination without cause or legal recourse. Critics maintain this power imbalance between employers and workers undermines job security and contributes to declining health care coverage as union influence diminishes.
Right-to-work laws profoundly shape union influence and economic outcomes across states implementing such legislation. These impacts manifest primarily in union representation rates, wage dynamics, and business location decisions.
Union density exhibits stark disparities between states with different labor laws. Right-to-work states maintain a unionization rate of just 5.1%, less than half the 14.2% observed in states protecting collective bargaining rights. Research demonstrates that right-to-work laws are associated with a decline of approximately 4 percentage points in unionization rates within five years of adoption. This effect intensifies in traditionally unionized sectors such as construction, education, and public administration, where the decrease reaches nearly 13 percentage points.
States repealing right-to-work laws experience opposite trends. After Michigan repealed its law in 2023, the state added nearly 15,000 union members within a year. Similarly, Illinois gained 27,000 union members in 2024 after constitutionally guaranteeing collective bargaining rights.
Right-to-work legislation creates mixed economic effects. Studies indicate these laws reduce wages by approximately 1% overall and more than 4% in heavily unionized industries. Yet paradoxically, right-to-work states demonstrate superior employment growth rates. Over the past decade, employment in 23 continuous right-to-work states grew by 16.4%, compared to less than half that rate in states without such laws.
Manufacturing employment demonstrates even greater disparities. The manufacturing share of employment increases by approximately 3.2 percentage points in right-to-work counties compared to non-right-to-work counterparts. Concurrently, census data reveals a 19.1% higher population growth in right-to-work counties between 1940 and 2010.
Business location decisions frequently factor in right-to-work status. Approximately one-third of industrial clients use right-to-work as a filtering criterion when selecting operational locations. Economic developers report that non-right-to-work states miss opportunities to compete for significant investment projects.
Manufacturing companies demonstrate particular sensitivity to these laws, with many refusing to consider non-right-to-work locations. This preference extends beyond traditional manufacturing to technology companies, including computer manufacturers and software firms.
Right-to-work laws create a complex landscape of worker rights, union dynamics, and economic impacts that every American worker should understand.
• Right-to-work states prohibit mandatory union membership or dues as employment conditions, giving workers choice but creating “free rider” issues for unions.
• Currently 26 states have right-to-work laws, primarily in the South and West, with Michigan becoming the first to repeal such legislation in 2024.
• Workers in right-to-work states earn 3.1% lower wages and face 54% higher workplace fatality rates compared to non-right-to-work states.
• These laws significantly weaken unions, reducing membership rates by half (5.1% vs 14.2%) and limiting collective bargaining power across industries.
• Right-to-work states attract more businesses and show 16.4% employment growth over the past decade, particularly in manufacturing sectors.
• The 2018 Janus decision effectively made all public sector employees nationwide subject to right-to-work protections, regardless of state law.
The debate continues as states weigh individual worker freedom against collective bargaining strength, with measurable impacts on wages, safety, and economic development that affect millions of American workers.
A right-to-work state has laws that prohibit mandatory union membership or dues payment as a condition of employment. These laws allow workers to choose whether to join or financially support a union, even if they benefit from union-negotiated contracts.
Studies show that workers in right-to-work states typically earn about 3.1% less than those in non-right-to-work states. Additionally, these workers often receive fewer benefits, with pension rates approximately 5% lower and reduced health care coverage.
Yes, workplace safety can be affected. Right-to-work states have a 54% higher workforce fatality rate compared to non-right-to-work states. Union worksites are 19% less likely to have OSHA violations, suggesting that stronger union presence correlates with safer working conditions.
Right-to-work laws significantly reduce union membership. States with these laws have a unionization rate of just 5.1%, less than half the 14.2% observed in states that protect collective bargaining rights. This decline in membership can weaken unions’ bargaining power and resources.
While right-to-work laws are associated with lower wages, they tend to attract more businesses and show higher employment growth rates. Over the past decade, employment in right-to-work states grew by 16.4%, compared to less than half that rate in states without such laws. Manufacturing sectors, in particular, show increased growth in right-to-work states.
Curious about more HR buzzwords like privilege leave, casual leave, leave encashment, relieving letter, resignation letter or more? Dive into our HR Glossary and get clear definitions of the terms that drive modern HR.
Explore Taggd for RPO solutions.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |