Legislative Update: Right to work testimony - February 16, 2024 Windham Independent
Legislative Update: Right to work testimony
My testimony on HB1377 (right to work bill) is below. The video is on the NH House of Representatives Youtube channel, Labor committee, February 07 hearing, 4 min. 45 sec. into the video.
Let me start my testimony by answering a question often asked by other people who testified against this bill: Why wouldn’t everyone want a union job?
I do not want a union job because I do not agree that someone should be paid more and be given first choice of work assignments simply because they have seniority. I want to be able to negotiate my own contract that suits my personal preferences, instead of having to agree to a one size fits all contract negotiated by the union. I was born and raised in a communist country - I do not take it kindly to being forced to do something that I do not willingly choose to do. I could go on, but we only have so much time.
While I do not want a union job for myself, I also do not want to impose my beliefs on others - I respect the choices of people who want one, and would never prevent them from choosing to be in an union if that is what is best for them.
This bill is about protecting everyone’s right to make their own choices - each of us knows what is right for them better than a government official. This bill supports the right of workers to voluntarily organize in unions - it just protects each workers’ civil rights and freedom of association by prohibiting the payment of union dues from being a required condition of employment.
For the record, CWA vs. Beck diminished, but did NOT eliminate the right of unions to collect member fees from everyone in a workplace, regardless of whether they wanted to join a union or not. The court ruled that CWA's collection and disbursement of agency fees for purposes other than collective bargaining activities violated the rights of nonmembers, but continued to allow the unions to collect fees from nonmembers for collective bargaining.
One expression that was heard in almost every testimony opposing this bill was “free riders”, who supposedly take advantage of federal law that forces unions to represent all workers at a company, whether or not they pay union dues, treating unions unfairly. While I believe every person who said this thought it was true, that is not the case.
Federal law does NOT obligate unions to represent non-members. Under the National Labor Relations Act, unions can represent only their dues-paying members under a members-only contract.
Unions are ONLY required to represent all workers IF unions choose to take on exclusive bargaining representation to gain a monopoly on union representation in that negotiation unit.
They do not do this selflessly - they use their bargaining monopoly to eliminate competition from other unions, to gain more power over the employer by not allowing them to negotiate contracts with non-union members, and to make union contract staples like seniority possible by preventing the high performing workers harmed by those provisions from negotiating for pay based on merit.
Yes, IF unions opt for exclusive representation, federal law requires unions to negotiate equally for all workers to protect non-union members from being negotiated into lower wages or poorer working conditions against their will. Member-only unions are NOT required to represent non-members, eliminating any concern about free riders.
To summarize - unions CHOOSE to negotiate as an exclusive representative in order to benefit themselves and their members, then they call the people they coerced into being represented by the union “free riders” to falsely suggest they are to blame for a situation the union created.
If free riders are a burden to the union, the union can eliminate them by choosing to be a member only union. If the union chooses to ask for exclusive bargaining in a right to work state, they do so knowing full well that their choice is beneficial to them regardless of the so-called “free rider” issue.
This bill respects the right of every worker who chooses to be a union member to become one and enjoy the union representation they desire, and it eliminates the right of unions to force unwilling people to pay them for services they do not want, and are coerced into using even when those services are detrimental to themselves. Both are desirable policy goals and worthy of support.
Thank you for allowing me to testify.
I am happy to engage with any Windham resident on my legislative work - you can reach me with concerns or questions about any legislative matters at 603 267 4142 (call or text), or by email at dpm@leg.state.nh.us.
Daniel Popovici-Muller
Windham Representative
Clerk, Division II
House Finance Committee