The Results Do Not Justify the Trouble

IN the recent elections, right-to-work laws went down to defeat in five of the six states where they were proposed. But they are far from a dead issue. Already, unionists are getting set for a drive in Congress to outlaw state laws that forbid the union shop. The arguments over such laws have ranged all the way from the position of Labor Secretary James Mitchell that "they do more harm than good" to the stand of General Electric Chairman Ralph Cordiner, who says his company takes right-to-work laws into consideration as a plus factor when locating new plants. But the debate has been more emotional than factual. The big overlooked question: How do right-to-work laws work in the 18 states that have them?

In Florida, which passed the first right-to-work law in 1943, the law has had little effect; it has no teeth and is largely disregarded. The building-trades unions, biggest in the state, do not protest the law simply because they fear that if.they get it revoked they might get a law that would hurt them. In four other states--South Carolina, North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona--the situation is much the same; the laws have had virtually no effect on union or labor relations. There are many ways to get around them. In Virginia unionists in the building trades have found a simple way to defeat the anti-closed-shop provisions of the state law: when a nonunion member shows up on a construction job, union members just get "sick" until he is fired. Union growth has hardly been hampered. Since the Virginia law was passed in 1947, union membership has grown from 100,000 to 150,000. There are other dodges to get around the restriction on the closed shop, such as the "agency" shop in which nonunion employees pay union dues.

While union leaders in Texas complain that the law has hurt them, they are hard put to find figures to prove it. Ed Burris, executive vice president of the Texas Manufacturers Association, cites union membership, which has grown from 110,500 before World War II to 400.000 today. He feels that the law has not inhibited the growth of unions or their functions as bargaining agents. Unionists charge that the law has had other bad effects. Jerry Holleman, head of the Texas A.F.L.-C.I.O., says the law has weakened union discipline, causing more wildcat strikes, and that the union must take many more grievance cases, often trivial ones, to arbitration lest the union members withdraw from the local on grounds that they are not being ably represented.

Perhaps the biggest effect of the laws has been to hamper organizing by weak unions. In Iowa, says Federation of Labor President Ray Mills, "it has become almost impossible to organize areas where workers are in an especially weak position." In Utah, which has probably the only right-to-work law with real teeth in it, unionists complain that it is hard to organize workers at all. In fact, there has not been an organizing strike or picket line for the last three years.

Many a unionist feels that the prime purpose of most of the laws, which was to curb the power of big unions, has had the opposite effect. Some of the weak unions, said Gordon Preble. president of the Nebraska A.F.L.-C.I.O.. have been broken up in Nebraska and the members have joined the strong unions. Thus, says he, the effect has been to "make the strong unions stronger. The strong unions have also had to mend their fences, become more responsive to their members. It has knit them together."

Whether a right-to-work law helps lure industry to a state, as proponents claim, is also debatable. Backers of the law in Indiana cite the fact that the state has gained 85 new industries since the law was passed last year. But industries were entering the state at almost the same rate before then. Moreover, 16 industries have decided to leave since the law went into effect. e.g., Chrysler Corp. will move its Evansville plant to Missouri, which has no right-to-work law.

In almost all the right-to-work states, unionists agree that where labor and management got on well before the law, they still get along well. Those who fought unions before have tried to use the laws to kill unions or to knock down union pay standards. Says Edmond McGoldrick, president of the big, active Reno local of the Musicians' Union: "It is helping the chiselers."

In sum, the statutes have had little effect on labor or on business, but a considerable effect on the Republican Party's election losses. Said John W. McConnell of the U.S. Mediation and Conciliation Service: Right-to-work laws "are at best symbols of the conflict between organized labor and organized management." They do not improve the organization and responsibility of labor; and "make no fundamental contribution to the rights of workers or to industrial peace."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.