2 votes

National right to work act?

Federal "right to work act"? TO: 10th Amendment Center, cc Rand Paul, cc DP

I have received requests from Rand Paul to support his "national right to work law" efforts. Toda I suddenly asked myself whether or not such a federal law is constitutional. The constitution does not give congress the power to regulate employment or employees or their associations in the various states does it? Is this not a "state issue"?
Please give me some feed back on this question.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Being a union worker, I think

Being a union worker, I think I can add something to this. The unions are not what you think they are. I live in a right to work state...but I took a VOLUNTARY contract by joining the union saying I wont work in my field except through the union, which is fair enough...no one forced me to join. I think of the union as a temp service because that is exactly what it is. It finds me a job...I go and work that job for 3 months then get laid off. This works out great for me since often I will work 84 hours a weeks for 3 months....then go home and I am able to take 3 months off if I so choose. There is a reason these employers prefer union labor...its because union employees are experts in their particular field...lets say a nuclear power plant needs to replace a pipe from a feedwater heater in a boiling water reactor. If they hire a non-union person to do this there is the problem of not knowing if they have ever done it before. The quality of their welds is more suspect since they dont have to pass constant weld qualification tests, this may be their first nuclear job and they may be unfamiliar with the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of contamination, etc etc. The list goes on. Whereas with a union worker they are required to go through anapprenticeship program for five years...required to take all these tests and qualifications constantly and generally will adhere to all the policies better...including OSHA standards. That being said...I see no problem with a right to work law...like I said I joined the union voluntarily....it should never be mandatory...right to work is definately the correct libertarian standpoint

Interference in fundamental rights

It seems to me that right-to-work laws at any level are an unwarranted interference in the fundamental rights of association and contract. There is certainly nothing in the Federal Constitution to support the government regulating or prohibiting closed-shop contracts (except possibly for the case of Federal employees). I suppose given the grotesque distortions of the Interstate Commerce Clause some sort of justification might be wangled, along the lines of Gonzalez v. Raich or the recent ACA suit, but it wouldn't be very libertarian or respectful of Constitutional principles.

As long as it only applies to Federal employment, work under

Federal Contract, or only in Federal Territories, and NOT the several States in any other capacity of employment, I'm all for it.

But try to make this apply to private businesses within any of the several States and I will fight this to the bitter end. Not no, but HELL NO.

This doesn't mean I approve of any unions. It means it's none of the government's damned business.

Here's a possibility... The

Here's a possibility...

The commerce clause authorizes the federal government to regulate (with "regulate" meaning to "make regular" at the time it was written) commerce among the states and the Indian nations.

Working is a form of commerce, so it might be that the federal government has authority under the Constitution to ensure that this commerce not be prevented by States/Unions.

Just some food for thought...

...

It's an attack on labor

unions from forcing people to buy into their union in order to have a job. Everyone has a right to a job and not have to be forced to join the union. The unions are at obama's beck and call. The big union bosses are at the top of most visits to the white house and are no different than the mafia. They are the real thugs who help cheat the vote and are trying to force union people to vote the way they want, to campaign for obama for free or be fired.

It means everyone should have the right to be hired and not have to pay union dies to some fat cat union boss to get rich off of the dues and cmapaign kick-backs. I guess you got lost in the dust on this issue. It was a real ugly scene in 2008 election. No more Unions. We do not need them. That is so yesterday. We are fighting back. Get rid of the unions. It serves no purpose but to make Trumka the obama union boss and the like get to be the 1% super rich.

Then USA can heal when 'right to work' is enforced which it already is in the constitution except for one minor sentence or two that was added. As long as union bosses are in power, we are toast. They are the NWO types. They launder money for others too. Why pay dues? What do you get for it? Nothing.

So where have you been that you do not know this? an obot?

Keepin' it real.

Really? The facts show that

Really? The facts show that union membership is way down, as are wages. The facts also show that if you are a union member, you make a decent amount more than a non-union member, especially in benefits.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Congress is implicitly given

Congress is implicitly given the right to enforce contracts if state laws don't already do it.

However, if states want to have their own laws regarding unions or minimum wage, that should be their right.

On the other hand, a more liberal interpretation of the commerce clause could allow one to argue that right-to-work is necessary to make commerce regular...if all these states have different employment laws, it causes problems. Standards can prevent abuse of citizens or prevent one state from getting the upper hand on another.

Again, if Rand Paul thinks right-to-work is something the feds can regulate, he must believe that the feds have a right to set minimum wage, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

right to enforce contracts?

What does that have to do with a federal law prohibiting closed shop unionization? What if some states want closed shop unionization for whatever reasons?

Furthermore competition between states is healthy. Who says national standardization is desirable? By that interpretation everything including the color of shoe laces could be regulated by congress.

SRC

Well, the Supreme Court has

Well, the Supreme Court has always maintained that the commerce clause only deals with significant issues of commerce.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always argued, and I think with some merit, that if if a certain state doesn't like a certain federal mandate (that is not specifically outlined in the Constitution; ie the state of Florida can't decide to legalize slavery), they can outvote their Congressmen or they can nullify the law.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a