Just a brief word. There is no opposite to “right-to-work”.
I was an NEA member. Like many, I represented my colleagues at local, state and national levels. I chose to opt out of contributing to PAC when it was voluntary. Had I not retired, I might have opted to only pay agency fees once Super PACs came into play, but it would have been a difficult decision.
Here are facts regarding unions and dues.
Locke v. Karass: Non-Union Workers At Organized Work Places Cannot Be Forced To Pay For “Political, Public Relations, Or Lobbying” Activities By Unions. In a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the majority, echoing past precedent, reaffirmed that non-union members in work places are only to pay a service fee that equaled to the amount collective bargaining services and contract maintenance services cost. [U.S. Supreme Court, Locke v. Karass, 1/21/09]
CWA v. Beck: Unions Cannot Force Non-Members To Pay Dues For Political Action. In the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers v. Beck, the majority found that the Communications Workers of America (CWA) could not charge non-members in work places they organize fees that paid for political action by the union. [U.S. Supreme Court, CWA v. Beck, 6/29/88]
Compare those Supreme Court rulings with what is stated by the National Right to Work organization.
A Right to Work law guarantees that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union.
The difference is “to pay a service fee that equaled to the amount collective bargaining services and contract maintenance services cost.” In otherwords, a fee for the cost of bargaing salaries, health benefits, and work conditions for all workers, non-union and union.
6 Facts on Fair Share Fees (with links to Supreme Court rulings)
If there is no legal vehicle, such as a union, for establishing and maintaining a safe workplace, fair pay and benefits, and reasonable expectation of job security, how long before the system devolves back to the conditions that created the necessity for unions?
All the RTW legislation does is erode what has been hard won, and give workers in RTW states the benefits of the negotiation process without sharing the cost of the process. There is no opposite to “right-to-work”. When prominent people seek to mislead the populace with misinformation, or inaccurate lables like “right-to-work”, how can we trust them to hold political office?
And by the way, tenure is only a vehicle to ensure an individual’s right to due process, the conditions of which are clearly defined by the employment contract. It most likely includes a morality clause (mine did), as well as a lengthy process of evaluation done by an administrator. The claim that tenure results in keeping bad teachers in the classroom is twisted. If bad teachers are not being removed, question the administration of yearly evaluations. It is not a union issue- no teacher negotiator would sacrifice salary and benefits for a lax tenure policy.