~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Also, see the short version of this article below after this.)
LONG VERSION (570 words—too long for the Forum)
A ballot proposal this November would make it unconstitutional for Michigan to become a "right to work" state. Does Catholic social teaching help us decide how to vote on it?
In non-right-to-work states (there are 27 of them, including Michigan and Ohio), an employer and a union may enter into a contract that requires all employees to either pay union dues or compensate the union for representing them (workplaces in which such a contract has been negotiated are called "agency shops"). In right-to-work states (Indiana is one), such contracts are unlawful. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 made an exception to federal labor law, allowing states to decide for themselves by law which they want to be.
Passions run high about this issue. Right-to-work proponents often argue that individual liberty is abridged when someone who wants to work for a certain employer can be fired for not joining a union (that's already against federal law), or they suggest that in non-right-to-work states workers are forced to support unions (although a workplace can't be an agency shop unless the employer agrees). They also often offer evidence that pay and working conditions are better in right-to-work states. Opponents of right-to-work insist that if employees take the advantages a union negotiates on their behalf, the employer should at least be allowed to agree that such "free riders" need to pay for those advantages. Opponents of right to work point out that the union became the bargaining agent by vote of the workers, and that in right-to-work states a worker's right to work in an agency shop is abridged. They, too, often offer evidence that pay and working conditions are better in non-right-to-work states.
Since Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891, teaching authorities in the Catholic Church have affirmed that all workers have a natural right to organize and to bargain collectively with employers. Catholic right-to-work opponents say that under right to work, unions are so weakened that the God-given right to form them is virtually meaningless. Catholic right-to-work proponents voice concern that an individual worker does not have the right to negotiate directly with an employer if a union is recognized as the bargaining agent for all workers. However, this line of argument in effect denies the right to unionize, since it is in the essence of a labor union to be able to bargain for all workers.
Both sides tend to argue that if their side wins workers or employers do better financially. The Church, however, insists that human rights must ground the decision that we voters make. It takes thought. Following Jesus in our complex society and economy always does.
Finally, some words from Pope Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), section 25:
Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and farsighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.
Written by Paul Schwankl of the St. Francis Parish Peace & Justice Committee
SHORT VERSION (276 words)
A ballot proposal this November would make it unconstitutional for Michigan to become a "right to work" state. Does Catholic social teaching offer any guidance on this topic?
In "non right to work" states, such as Michigan, an employer and a union may agree on a contract that makes their workplace an "agency shop." In an agency shop, employees can decide not to join the union, but the union is still legally required to represent these nonunion employees, and they must pay its expenses for doing that. In "right to work" states, agency-shop contracts are unlawful.
Federal law allows states to decide individually about right to work. In all states, federal law forbids a "closed shop" or "union shop," in which an employer agrees to employ only union members.
Supporters of right-to-work laws point out that these laws allow workers to oppose a union's political stands by not paying the union anything. Opponents argue that right-to-work laws undermine the rights of unionized workers to bargain, since nonunion workers get the benefits that the union has negotiated, but they don't have to pay for the union's services. Catholic opponents say that "right to work" weakens unions so that the God-given right to form them is virtually meaningless.
There are passionate debates about this issue. Unfortunately, they typically degenerate into arguments about whether workers in right-to-work or non-right-to-work states make more money.
Since the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the Catholic Church has affirmed the natural right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. The St. Francis Peace and Justice Committee urges parishioners to look at the issue as thoughtful Catholics do, on the basis of rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment