Talk:Right-to-work law

message: I didn't flag the article for NPOV violations, because I don't want to wade into such thorny territory being a newcomer to this article... but am I crazy in thinking that the first sentence is completely biased?  I don't think supporters of the law would describe its motivations as such. Instead, they typically reference freedom of speech and freedom from coercion for employees.  
Then, oddly enough, the next paragraph was apparently written by supporters of the law, because it cites the Legal Defense Foundation, which explicitly supports the laws.  Let's get some more neutral sources? Lrieber (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article is a shameful indictment of the liberal bias in numerous Wikipedia articles. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifics, please, so they can be corrected. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's what the cited source actually says on the subject:  I'm not sure the lede sentence that cites this source accurately reflects the content of the source, though I admit I'm at a loss on exactly how to rephrase it to better reflect the source. Particularly the statement  is arguably not NPOV, but I don't think changing it to  more accurately reflects the source either. Basically, it looks to me like that entire sentence needs to be rewritten to more closely match what the source actually says... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't think the sentence needs to be rewritten at all. We're discussing the difference between "benefit from" and "protected by." That's splitting hairs. Toby Higbie (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's really not – "protected by" is better in NPOV terms. "Benefit from" is in the eye of the beholder. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I have removed "so-called" from the lead, at least. I am fairly busy with other articles so I appreciate any help here pointing things out. DN (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I do believe that Democrats in Virginia (who'll be assuming the majority in the state bicameral legislature, in January 2020) have reneged on their promise to repeal 'right-to-work. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia 

message: In the states that don't have a Right to Work law, some have laws on the books that explicitly permit (or in some instances...mandate) the requirement for union membership as a condition of employment, while the law in other states is silent on Right to Work and Forced Unionization. I think it would be good to add a color shading for states that have laws explicitly permitting (or mandating) "Forced Unionization," in order to distinguish from states whose laws are neutral on the subject.  
For example, New Mexico recently enacted a law that 1) bans local jurisdictions from enacting Right to Work ordinances, and 2) explicitly permits collective bargaining agreements to include union membership as a requirement for employment.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.108.101 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this idea would improve the article. First, "forced unionism" is not a neutral term, as the article points out (see the section on "freedom of association." Second, the arrangements you seem to be referring to do not require membership. They require employees (after they are hired) to pay fees to support the administration of the collective bargaining contract. Unions generally cannot use these funds for any purpose not directly tied to administration of the contract. These arrangements are typically known as "agency fees" because the union is authorized by the state as workers' collective bargaining agent.  Toby Higbie (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Shading for states with "Forced Unionization" laws

message: There are some serious issues with calling these laws "Right-to-work", as it is strategically used to sway opinion through its name. Although the article goes into the difference in terminology, it does not do its jobs in in applying a neutral term to describe these laws. If this kind of terminology were applied for legislation bills concerning abortion, pages could be titled "Pro-life laws", "Right-to-life laws", "Right-to-choice laws" or "Pro-choice laws", which are all non-neutral.  
More appropriate titles for this page that should be considered; "Union security agreement laws", "Union association laws", "Union membership fee laws". 
Hoosier24 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the premise, but would like to offer "Laws prohibiting union security agreements" as a clearer alternative Eventhisacronym (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

text: While the term is itself a goddamned lie, the fact remains that this is the term used across the English-speaking world for such statutes. :WP:COMMONNAME prevails, I fear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with OrangeMike, this is the common name for this type of law, and I think it originated from the days of "closed shop" type unions, whereby a worker FIRST has to join the union and then when a job is available, the union decides which union member gets that job.  Now with those union arrangements no longer existing in the US, the term is propaganda, but it is the name for these types of laws. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. For better or worse, this is by far the most common term for these laws for supporters and opponents. This also makes it the phrase people will use to search for it to learn more. 107.184.67.185 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "Right-to-work" not a neutral term

message: The local right to work ordinance for Seaford, Delaware may never have been allowed under state law and it was formally overruled a few months later; it's not clear if it ever went into effect.  I've addded citations and updated the text. 
Can we update the map to reflect that Delaware is not a RTW state, even at the local level? (Tagging most recent editor to update it: .) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: sure go ahead 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 02:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, where do I actually go to edit it?  I've been going back and forth between English Wikipedia and Commons and I see where I can edit the description but no the actual graphic. (Sorry for the dumb question; I haven't done this before.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Map for Delaware