# Virginia Dopers: Constitutional amendment on the ballot: "Right to work" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592 "2016-10-24T14:34:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/81 "2016-10-31T10:28:02Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The right to work law is the one that says that an employer doesn’t need any reason to fire you whatsoever, right? Setting aside the union stuff, a Virginia employer needs no reason at all to fire an employee, as long as that non-reason is not a reason protected by law? > > IE Can’t be fired for being black, but can be fired because you wore brown shoes, that sort of thing? § 40.1-59 is under 80 words. You spent longer typing than it would have taken to find the answer to your question, which is no. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/82 "2016-10-31T14:07:56Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > § 40.1-59 is under 80 words. You spent longer typing than it would have taken to find the answer to your question, which is no. That was…not really helpful. But I think my confusion lies within the “right to work” and “at will employment” phrasing. At will is the phrase that allows an employer to terminate employment for any or no reason at all. I was simply trying to determine, as a Virginia resident, if the amendment would have any impact behind its 80 words regarding unions. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/83 "2016-10-31T14:23:21Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The right to work law is the one that says that an employer doesn’t need any reason to fire you whatsoever, right? Setting aside the union stuff, a Virginia employer needs no reason at all to fire an employee, as long as that non-reason is not a reason protected by law? > > IE Can’t be fired for being black, but can be fired because you wore brown shoes, that sort of thing? I am not sure how this point got mixed up in the right-to-work issue, which relates to labor unions. What you describe here is called “at will” employment, and puts employees and employers on equal footing as far as terminating employment. I don’t think this has anything to do with the ballot issue. In an at-will employment state, an employee can resign any time they want for no reason; an employer can terminate employment anytime they want for no reason, except for discrimination against a protected class. Most employers are diligent about documenting performance issues when they pursue a performance-related firing, so it cannot be interpreted as discrimination in case the employee happens to be a member of a protected class. But employers also terminate employment because of organizational restructuring or cost cutting. In reality IME it is very rare for a company to fire someone for capricious reasons, although this allows employers to fire poor performers without having to spend time, effort, and duration of compiling an airtight case to do so. Many employers do so anyway as a defense against later accusations or lawsuits. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/84 "2016-10-31T14:34:54Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The right to work law is the one that says that an employer doesn’t need any reason to fire you whatsoever, right? Setting aside the union stuff, a Virginia employer needs no reason at all to fire an employee, as long as that non-reason is not a reason protected by law? > > IE Can’t be fired for being black, but can be fired because you wore brown shoes, that sort of thing? No. As mentioned above, the right to work law says, in essence: “No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/85 "2016-10-31T14:43:30Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > So the law was enacted to protect people’s civil rights, and we know it’s a civil right because it’s protected by a law. And it needs to be in the state constitution because being a law isn’t enough even though it has been for 60 years. Yes, although your phrasing suggests a continued lack of understanding belied by the more-or-less accurate statements you’ve made. More accurately: the law was enacted to protect the right the join, or not join, a union without such membership or lack being a condition of employment. That’s a civil right in Virginia because the voters of Virginia chose to make it a civil right in Virginia. Your phrasing suggests more circular reasoning, but there is no actual circular reasoning: there is no claim other than Virginia’s public policy includes not enforcing union membership or allowing an employer to fire someone for union membership. Finally, the move to enshrine it in the state constitution is evidently to ensure that the protections it offers are not eviscerated by judicial action grounded in the state constitution. > [@](#): > > I’d be a lot more inclined to believe that argument if this amendment wasn’t being pushed by the same party that wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians. Are you under the impression that those issues are somehow legally related to unions? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/86 "2016-10-31T17:59:36Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > That was…not really helpful. But I think my confusion lies within the “right to work” and “at will employment” phrasing. At will is the phrase that allows an employer to terminate employment for any or no reason at all. > > I was simply trying to determine, as a Virginia resident, if the amendment would have any impact behind its 80 words regarding unions. The term “right to work” is misleading. The right to work laws are just union busting, they have nothing to do with having a “right to work”. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/87 "2016-10-31T20:24:34Z")
I live in New York City, an area where lots of jobs are unionized. And I almost chose a career in (IMHO) the most unionized field ever - not construction, but entertainment. Like construction, once you get into the big league workplaces - Broadway shows, TV networks, film studios - all the labor is unionized. But the unionization is more extensive - architects and interior designers aren’t unionized but lighting and scenery designers are. There is a term I’m looking for that I thought was “closed shop” but I just checked the definition and I am wrong. I was looking for a term for unions that tightly restrict their membership usually to keep jobs in the family. I changed my career path because of the barriers to union membership. I’m not talking about “we’ll hire you but you have to join the union”, that’s what happened to my friends that got jobs in supermarkets and in the garment business. I don’t have a problem with that sort of “closed shop” union. My situation was more like – “we can’t hire you unless you are a union member and if you want to join the union they give an exam once every 5 years and those that score within the top 5 percent can start a 5 year apprenticeship sometime over the next 5 years. Oh, but if your father was a member it’s different, then you can join right away.” THAT is the type of union I have a problem with, and I believe that membership in many construction unions is similarly restrictive … not as bad as the NY stagehands union (which is the one I described above), but still restrictive in that they limit their membership to protect themselves from competition. But I am still strongly in favor of unions, even closed shop unions, as long as anyone that wants to work there is allowed to join the union. Unions help equalize the inherent power imbalance in the employee/employer relationship, especially in less skilled jobs were the employees are interchangeable and can be replaced easily. It always amazes me that those conservative folks wax rhapsodic about the good old days of the 1950’s and 1960’s never seem to realize that the strong middle class of the time was built on union labor and 90%+ marginal tax rates. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/88 "2016-11-01T00:43:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The term “right to work” is misleading. The right to work laws are just union busting, they have nothing to do with having a “right to work”. Except in the case of Eugene Singleton, yes? His employer fired him because he refused to join the union. The law preserved his right to work, did it not? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/89 "2016-11-01T10:38:12Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > But I am still strongly in favor of unions, even closed shop unions, as long as anyone that wants to work there is allowed to join the union. Unions help equalize the inherent power imbalance in the employee/employer relationship, especially in less skilled jobs were the employees are interchangeable and can be replaced easily. I don’t see how you get from the potential benefits of unionisation to thinking that closed shops are acceptable. Anyone, suitably qualified, should be able to join or decline to join a union and their continued employment should not depend on the choice that they freely make. I’ve yet to hear a good case for why closed shops are a good thing for the worker. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/90 "2016-11-01T10:40:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The term “right to work” is misleading. The right to work laws are just union busting, they have nothing to do with having a “right to work”. Specifically how are they “union busting” ? (note that that is a fresh, new, unambiguous question.) How do you define “union busting” (look! another one) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/91 "2016-11-01T13:12:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Damuri Ajashi** : > > It almost sounds like you think there should be several unions at each work site competing for union members to see who can strike the best deal with management. I definitely think that should be allowed. In practice, I don’t think it would happen very often, because the unions would probably either unite to increase their power, or one would outcompete the other. As for having to ask a lawyer about that, that, I think, is a symptom of the problem. All you need for unions is the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly, government enforcement of contracts, and government enforcement against violence. All the rest of the union-related laws we have, on both sides, do nothing but needlessly complicate the issue. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/92 "2016-11-01T17:42:57Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Specifically how are they “union busting” ? (note that that is a fresh, new, unambiguous question.) > How do you define “union busting” (look! another one) - wiki:Opposed[edit source] Free riders[edit source] Some opponents (such as Richard Kahlenberg) have argued that while it is an effective political slogan, the phrase “right-to-work” is a misnomer because the lack of such a law does not deprive anyone of the right to work; a right-to-work law simply “gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it”.[18][19] Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a Duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted Agency fees so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted to not be a member. The right to challenge the fees must include the right to have it heard by an impartial fact finder.[20][21] Freedom of contract and association[edit source] Opponents argue that right-to-work laws restrict freedom of association, and limit the sorts of agreements individuals acting collectively can make with their employer, by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include “fair share fees”. This creates a free rider problem[5][22] among non-union employees who find the union contract beneficial. Thus, union members may end up subsidizing non-union members.[5][23] Moreover, American law imposes a duty of fair representation on unions; consequently non-members in right to work states can and do force unions to provide without compensation grievance services that are paid for by union members[citation needed]. Hence right-to-work laws are not neutral, but rather impose an active and artificial burden on labor unions. In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote: “I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. … I’m disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. … This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn’t involved, they’re private organizations that can offer value to their members.”[24] In the early development of the Right to Work policy segregationist sentiment was used as an argument, as many people in the south felt that it was wrong for Blacks and Whites to belong to the same unions. Vance Muse, one of the early developers of the Right to Work philosophy in Texas used this type of argument in the development of anti-union laws in Texas in the 1940s.[25][26][27][28][29] Corporate interests[edit source] Critics from organized labor have argued since the late 1970s[30] that while the National Right to Work Committee purports to engage in grass-roots lobbying on behalf of the “little guy”, the\*\* National Right to Work Committee was formed by a group of southern businessmen with the express purpose of fighting unions, \*\*and that they “added a few workers for the purpose of public relations”.[31] The unions also contend that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee have received millions of dollars in grants from foundations controlled by major U.S. industrialists like the New York-based Olin Foundation, Inc., which grew out of a family manufacturing business.[31][32]\* Bolding mine _Union busting is a pejorative term used by media, labor organizations, and others to describe a wide range of activities undertaken to disrupt or prevent the formation of trade unions. Union busting tactics can refer to both legal and illegal activities, and can range anywhere from subtle to violent._ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/93 "2016-11-01T17:44:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except in the case of Eugene Singleton, yes? His employer fired him because he refused to join the union. The law preserved his right to work, did it not? He was a Free rider. He took Union benefits without paying in. … the phrase “right-to-work” is a misnomer because the lack of such a law does not deprive anyone of the right to work; a right-to-work law simply “gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it”.[18][19] Under labor laws in the United States, the union as the exclusive collective bargaining agent has a Duty of fair representation for all persons in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to be members and pay dues. Thus, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted Agency fees so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted to not be a member. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/94 "2016-11-01T18:47:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Union busting is a pejorative term used by media, labor organizations, and others to describe a wide range of activities undertaken to **disrupt or prevent the formation of trade unions**. Union busting tactics can refer to both legal and illegal activities, and can range anywhere from subtle to violent._ none of that block of text answers my question. But at least you defined “union busting” So I’ll try again using your own definition in bold above Specifically, how does an legal right to remain outside of a union “disrupt or prevent the formation of trade unions”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/95 "2016-11-01T18:50:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > none of that block of text answers my question. But at least you defined “union busting” > > So I’ll try again using your own definition in bold above > > Specifically, how does an legal right to remain outside of a union “disrupt or prevent the formation of trade unions”? Ok, the Union, has to by law, Negotiate on behalf of the entire bargaining unit. In return, it gets Union Dues. Without Dues, it can’t operate. if you allow “free riders” who get all the benefits of the collective bargaining but dont have to pay due, then no one will pay dues- and snap- Union Busted. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/96 "2016-11-01T18:52:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He took Union benefits without paying in. You have not established that the union was a net benefit to him. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/97 "2016-11-01T19:04:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And putting aside theory, empirical evidence shows unions work - unionized employees get higher wages and more benefits than non-unionized employees in the same jobs. Professional assassins also work. They get people you want dead into the ground. Saying that something accomplishes the goal that it sets out to accomplish is a much different thing than saying that it provides a net benefit to society, over the long run, or that people should be obligated to join in. I could probably find a bunch of metrics that people who are married and have children cause fewer crimes and earn a higher wage. That doesn’t mean that you should be required to marry by the time you’re 20 and have children by the time you’re 23. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/98 "2016-11-01T19:07:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > He was a Free rider. He took Union benefits without paying in. You say “Free Rider” I say independent worker. The union didn’t give him any benefits, the company offered him a new contract. He should be free to accept or decline any contract put to him and negotiate as he sees fit. He should be free to seek or reject membership of any union as he wishes. Those seem like really straightforward statements. None of the above places any additional burden on a union and none of it makes it any harder for unions to be formed or to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/99 "2016-11-01T19:11:12Z")
No, the company was legally obligated to offer him a new contract because it offered one to unionized workers. Again, this is a distinction in American law that you don’t seem to have grasped. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592/100 "2016-11-01T19:17:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, the company was legally obligated to offer him a new contract because it offered one to unionized workers. Again, this is a distinction in American law that you don’t seem to have grasped. Yes, he had to get the same benefits as the Union workers- without having to pay for them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/virginia-dopers-constitutional-amendment-on-the-ballot-right-to-work/769592.md?page=6)