On February 13, HB 283 was indefinitely postponed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives. This bill, if put into effect, would have made N.H. a “right-to-work” state. Unlike international laws of the same name which ensure the ability to work as a human right, United States right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements from being made between employers and labor unions.
Republican legislators that are in support of this bill say that it is not “anti-union” but instead “pro-worker.” They seem to be under the impression that unions will bar prospective employees from working without this legislation, despite the fact that this sort of coercion is already illegal and has been since 1947 thanks to the Taft-Hartley Act. I will venture that most of them already know that and are actively trying to deceive people who do not research what right-to-work laws actually enforce. What these legislators are not saying is that right-to-work laws, by reducing the presence of labor unions, allow states to favor the wishes of corporations over the needs of working families.
The name “right-to-work” is inherently misleading. It makes these laws sound as though they protect a worker’s right to work without joining a union, but as stated, this type of coercion is already illegal. So what, then, do they actually do? When union security agreements are prohibited, unions are then required to use their financial resources for the benefit of all employees, even those who refuse to join and as such do not pay union dues. Over time, this diminishes the presence of a union in a particular workplace by depleting its funds and taking away its collective bargaining power. This creates a domino effect of lower union membership, which then can lead to the outright dissolution of the union itself.
Unions and the workers who started them are the reason that any legislation exists protecting laborers. Without unions, it is entirely possible that the United States would not have child labor laws, and tragedies like the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire would hardly make local news. But ever since unions have been able to gain leverage against corporate interests, there has been pushback from corporations and the legislators that are in their pockets. This is a trend more commonly known as union busting. Some right-to-work laws have been in effect in some states since 1947, and they are scarily effective at diminishing union presence. According to an Economic Policy Institute paper by Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, workers in those states have the lowest average union membership in the nation, and as a result are less likely to receive health insurance and are paid wages three to four percent lower than in other states. Many of them live below the poverty line.
This bill’s postponement has been celebrated by union members, and rightly so, but despite the “indefinite” nature of this vote, it only means that the bill cannot return in a similar form for two years. The legislators who want to see unions go have always been around and they are both vigilant and deceitful. It is vital that right-to-work laws be kept out of New Hampshire and any other state that has not already been affected by them.
May Cassidy can be contacted at
mcassidy@kscequinox.com
