Montana's Proposed Right-to-Work Legislation: Do Residents Know Their Labor Laws?

The current investigation was designed to determine whether or not average residents of the State of Montana were knowledgeable about their labor laws. Using an eight-item questionnaire, 100 subjects from the State of Montana were randomly selected for participation and sampled by telephone. The results indicated that the average Montanan was either uninformed or misinformed about the provisions of the law. There were no significant differences in knowledge found between the male and female respondents. When compared with the research findings from earlier studies, Montana residents demonstrated that they were either uninformed or misinformed about their labor laws to a greater extent than residents of the 22 right-to-work states. The passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) “brought forth an immediate outcry of unfairness on the part of organized labor” [1, p. 31]. Particularly troubling to unions was Section 14(b) of the act that enabled states to enact right-to-work laws 1 prohibiting employers and labor 189 2008, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/CN.32. 3.b http://baywood.com 1 There are currently 22 right-to-work states. The states and their years of enactment are: Alabama (1953), Arizona (1946), Arkansas (1944), Florida (1944), Georgia (1947), Idaho (1985), Iowa (1947), Kansas (1958), Louisiana (1976), Mississippi (1954), Nebraska (1946), Nevada (1951), North Carolina (1947), North Dakota (1947), Oklahoma (2001), South Carolina (1954), South Dakota (1946), Tennessee (1947), Texas (1947), Utah (1955), Virginia (1947), and Wyoming (1963). *Katie L. Valentine was a graduate student at Middle Tennessee State University at the time that this research was conducted. organizations from entering into any agreement that requires union membership or non-membership as a condition of employment. Arguably, Section 14(b) has generated more controversy over the past six decades than any other labor law. Almost immediately, organized labor embarked on lobbying efforts aimed at repealing or amending the act and at thwarting states from enacting right-to-work laws. In opposition to their positions, advocates for right-to-work laws, most notably the National Right-to-Work Committee, arose in resistance. Over the years, both opponents and proponents of the right-to-work issue have expended countless resources in their attempts to garner support for their respective positions. These factors have been evidenced by continued attempts to sway legislative and popular opinion by disseminating educational materials, using mass media channels to promote emotional appeals, and providing fertile research grounds and debating platforms for academicians and practitioners. In the past, studies have attempted to measure and predict the impacts that right-to-work laws have had, or will have, on union membership [2-5] and the effects these laws have on a right-to-work state’s overall economic condition [6, 7]. Unfortunately, 60 years of research has resulted in inconclusive and mixed findings. Some researchers concluded that those states that have enacted right-to-work laws might indeed see decreased union membership [7-9]. Other investigators determined that whether or not a state has a right-to-work law has little, if any, impact on unionization [3-6]. Finally, while some articles have concluded that states with right-to-work laws may experience overall improved economic conditions [10, 11], other researchers have concluded that the real effects of right-to-work laws rests in “symbolism” rather than the overall impact that these laws have on economic conditions and unionization [3, 12-14]. Interestingly, the mixed research findings have had little effect in dissuading either right-to-work supporters or their opponents from adhering to their original positions. This phenomenon is best understood by accepting the premise that from its onset, the debate over the impact of right-to-work laws appears to have been fueled by emotions rather than facts. As early as 1956, Keller noted that, “the mere mention of right-to-work laws causes an immediate and intense emotional reaction” [15, p. 5]. Furthermore, the strength of these sentiments appears to be geographically based with southern and midwestern states favoring right-to-work laws [16-18]. Emotional arguments by both supporters and opponents of right-to-work laws have historically been categorized into two opposing doctrines. Proponents of right-to-work laws maintain that compulsory unionism violates freedom of choice and unions do not have the right to enjoy more strength than voluntarism provides [19]. To deny a worker these rights, by forcing them to join a union, or to pay a portion of the dues, in order to maintain their job is tantamount to making them a “captive passenger. ” On the other hand, opponents of right-to-work laws argue that since the law requires that they represent all workers in the bargaining unit irrespective as to whether or not they join the union or pay dues, and since this 190 / SINGER AND VALENTINE