This article first appeared in Complete Colorado on January 17, 2025.
The Left talks a lot about “democracy.” In the 2024 election it also invoked “freedom.” Of course, that talk is a sham. What the Left really wants is an authoritarian political system controlled by their own oligarchy.
If you need more proof of this, look no further than Colorado Senate Bill 25-005. It is sponsored by 44 far-left state lawmakers. It would strip Colorado workers of both democracy and freedom.
The good news is that we can fight back by passing a voter initiative for a state constitutional amendment called the Colorado Workers’ Rights Act.
Labor law background
Most federal labor law is the product of the 1930s and the Great Depression. It reflects political ideas popular at the time. The general principles behind federal labor law look much like those then prevailing in fascist Italy—which is not surprising, because before World War II Benito Mussolini was a favorite of many “progressives.”
Federal labor law also reflects the power of the union lobby in the Democrat-controlled Congresses of the 1930s.
The general idea behind federal labor law is that workers should be herded into very large negotiating groups, which then would negotiate collectively with very large business entities.
As a result of pressure from the union lobby, Congress forced businesses to negotiate with unions. Moreover, Congress decided that once a majority of workers in a “unit” voted for union representation, dissenters would lose the right to represent themselves.
Because dissenting workers would thereby receive union representation “services” (even if they didn’t want them), the union lobby further argued that anyone who doesn’t join the union is a “free rider.” So Congress encouraged union-management sweetheart deals forcing people to join the union or lose their jobs.
In 1947, Congress revisited federal labor policy. Congress confirmed its broad outlines, but made some concessions to common sense. One concession was to recognize that states retained power to protect employees from being forced into a union. This was Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, now codified as 29 U.S.C. Section 164(b).
Laws protecting employees from forced unionism are called “right to work laws.” Most states (26) have adopted them. (Scroll down for a map here.)
Right to work in the states
In libertarian theory, right to work laws should not be necessary: As Ari Armstrong points out, in a truly free market, employers would be at liberty to hire only union workers. In a truly free market, moreover, employers also would be at liberty to refuse to negotiate with unions and individual workers would be free to opt either to allow a union to negotiate for them or to negotiate for themselves.
The problem is that federal labor law has greatly restricted the free market. As noted, it forces employers to negotiate with unions. And if a majority of workers in a “unit” vote for a union, it forces dissenting workers to give up the right to negotiate for themselves.
Right to work laws allow workers to recapture some of the freedom federal law denies them.
There are two major reasons so many states have enacted right to work laws. First, it offends most people’s sense of fairness to force workers to be part of an organization they don’t want to join. You can even argue that to the extent federal labor statutes promote forced unionism, they violate the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of association. After all, freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. (Although the word “association” does not appear in the First Amendment’s text, as explained here, it is a necessary incident of the freedoms the First Amendment does list.)
Thus far, however, the Supreme Court has upheld mandatory-union agreements for private sector workers.
A second reason so many states have adopted right to work laws is that right to work states become more prosperous than forced unionism states.
Empirical studies have shown this again and again. Typically, they compare how each group of states has performed on a range of economic indicators. Among the indicators used are personal income growth, job creation, manufacturing growth, the establishment of new businesses, and wage levels. On all of these indicators except wages—where the results are more mixed—the case for right to work is compelling.
For example, an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank—who now chairs the economics department at the University of Minnesota—examined a collection of adjacent counties. The counties had similar characteristics, except that some were in forced unionism states while their neighbors were in right to work states. He reported when one crossed the border from a forced-unionism county to a right to work county, there was “a large abrupt increase in manufacturing activity.”
Only in the area of wages is the case more ambiguous. Some leftist “think tanks” have seized on that to claim that right to work laws impede prosperity. But as leftists often do, they cherry-pick the evidence. They ignore studies showing that right to work states actually produce higher wages. They ignore the fact that in right to work states reduced wages may be more than offset by lower general price levels, so that workers have more real purchasing power. And they ignore the fact that when an economy is dynamically creating new jobs, the average wage may drop because new jobs tend to pay somewhat less than the older ones.
But getting a new job in a right to work state is a lot better than being unemployed in a forced unionism state. After all, new jobs tend to mature into better-paying established ones.
Quibbles aside, the proof is in the pudding: Most states have opted for right to work and have been happy with the results.
Colorado background
In 1943, Colorado businesses, unions, and politicians cut a deal that the general assembly adopted as the “Labor Peace Act.” The law did not abolish forced unionism, but placed some modest curbs on it.
The Labor Peace Act says that before union and management can create an “all-union agreement,” the workers must consent in a special election. Either three-fourths of those voting or a majority of all employees (whether or not voting) must agree before dissenters can be roped in by force.
The requirement for a special election with heightened majorities protects workers from strong-arm tactics, which have been recurrent features of union/management struggles.
The Labor Peace Act compromise has prevailed for over 72 years, but the sponsors of Senate Bill 25-005 seek to upend it. They want to deprive workers of the right to vote at a special election and instead leave their fate to the tender mercies of union and company bosses.
So much for the Left’s commitment to “democracy” and “freedom.”
The solution
Since Colorado “progressives” have decided to blow up the long-standing Labor Peace Act, the rest of us have an opportunity to replace it with something better. We can adopt the right to work constitutional amendment known as the “Colorado Workers’ Rights Act.” It protects employees’ freedom to either join or not join a union.
Passing the Colorado Workers’ Rights Amendment is a way we can use the voter initiative process to protect freedom from the depredations of the Left.
A final, personal note
When I was a young man, I served as a lifeguard at a New York state park. Management treated us very badly. Some of management’s practices also endangered the park patrons we were trying to protect.
So we formed a union. I was one of the three leaders and chief negotiators. In union lingo, I was a “shop steward.”
After a tough struggle, we succeeded in bringing about changes that were good both for us and for the bathers under our care.
I tell the story to show that I am not anti-union. I believe unions can serve valuable purposes and I become uncomfortable when people start bashing unions in general. And I’m very grateful that Americans enjoy the freedom to join unions.
We also had a few dissenters who said they didn’t want to join. We never once thought of forcing them to do so.
Freedom works both ways.