Right-to-Work: True Intentions
Congressman Fred Hartley, cosponsor of the Taft/Hartley labor bill of 1947 said, "You are going to find there is more in this bill than may meet the eye." One aspect of that bill hidden from the scrutiny of the American public was section 14b, the "right-to-work" loophole.
Right-to-less (a more applicable name) laws take away from a union's right; won, in this state, in a democratic election of a local's members, to bargain a security agreement. (A security agreement assures that all people who receive the benefits of a contract help pay for its maintenance.) Though this may seem insignificant, the repercussions on a state's labor force is staggering. Lower wages, less benefits and reduced on-the-job safety are the proven results of a right-to-less law.
Plain and simple, the destruction of labor unions and the higher wages and job rights they bring was the intentions the sponsors had in mind when they proposed the Taft/Hartley bill.
"As long as they have the power they have had, they (unions) are bound to make unreasonable demands," bill cosponsor, Representative Robert Taft, said in 1947. "One of the purposes of the bill as I see it,... is to cut that power down somewhat," he added.
And who were the sponsors? Senator Taft admitted that 75% of the 1947 Taft/ Hartley bill was presented to him by employers' groups, who promoted their position under the guise of protecting the "public interest". Today it's corporations and lawmakers "protecting the public interest" who support right-to-less and other anti-worker laws.
However, it doesn't sound like it's our interests corporate America is looking out for.
Again, lower wages and fewer work rights are the stated goals of business leaders in the state. Two business representatives, speaking in front of the House committee this year, voiced a need for a right-to-less law in this state because they simply can't afford to pay union wages.
Our work is the way we pay our bills, how we put food on the table and how we help provide for our families. Having our work advertised by our state lawmakers as "cheap labor" can't help our interests.
Nevertheless, in 1947, corporate leaders weren't as brazen as they are today. After Taft/Hartley passed over a President Truman veto, Earl Bunting, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, an anti-labor business group, said that management should "seek no unintended advantage from technicalities" in the law.
However, it's those technicalities, such as the bill's right-to-less provision, that were intended when business groups wrote the Taft/Hartley bill. It's those technicalites business leaders in this state are proposing to exploit today in order to cripple unions and silence the voice of the Colorado worker.
The Taft/Hartley bill represented a radical change in direction for labor relations in America. Instead of bullets and bloodshed to suppress workers, corporations would now seek to destroy labor rights through legislation.
As of now, we are still travelling in the direction Big Business set in 1947. As we look back at where we came from, can we say things have improved for the American working class? Perhaps an answer to that question is right here in our two-tier structure.
It's time to change directions. Vote in this year's elections. Before you flip the switches in the voting booth, think a moment about you and your family and ask yourself, "Will this candidate help out the average worker, or will this candidate continue to push me in the direction business set for the workers in 1947?"
A lot is at stake. The right-to-less "technicality" in the 1947 Taft/Hartley law could soon be the right-to-less "reality". Speaking personally, the right-to-less is one labor "right" I'd rather not have.
Sources: The New York Times May 1-June 25 1947.
Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism 1945-1960 by Elizabeth Fones-Wolf
SOLIDARITY