text:
Right-to-work law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is about the U.S. laws prohibiting mandated union membership and dues. For the human right concept, see right to work. For the Indian law, see National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.
In the context of US labor politics, "right-to-work laws" refers to laws (currently effective in 27 states) that prohibit union security agreements between companies and labor unions. Under these laws, employees in unionized workplaces are banned from negotiating contracts which require all members who benefit from the union contract to contribute to the costs of union representation.[1]
According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government ban on contractual agreements between employers and union employees requiring workers to pay for the costs of union representation.[2]
Right-to-work laws (either by statutes or by constitutional provision) exist in 27 U.S. states, mostly in the Southern, Western, and Midwestern states. Business interests represented by the United States Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[3][4] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between people employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector, with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., workers must pay for union representation in order to obtain or retain a job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees; provided, however, that the law also permits an "agency shop" where employees pay their share for representation (less than union dues), while not joining the union as members.
Contents
1 History
1.1 Origins
1.2 Wagner Act (1935)
1.3 Taft–Hartley Act (1947)
1.4 Current status
2 Arguments for and against
2.1 Minority rights and due process
2.2 Freedom of association
2.3 Unfairness
2.4 Political contributions
2.5 Cost of living
2.6 Free riders
2.7 Freedom of contract and association
2.8 Corporate interests
3 Studies of economic effect
4 Polling
5 U.S. states with right-to-work laws
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Opposed to right-to-work laws
8.2 Supported right-to-work laws
History[edit]
Origins[edit]
According to Slate, right-to-work laws are derived from legislation forbidding unions from forcing strikes on workers, as well as from legal principles such as liberty of contract, which as applied here sought to prevent passage of laws regulating workplace conditions.[5]
According to PandoDaily and NSFWCORP, the term itself was coined by Vance Muse, a Republican operative who headed an early right-to-work group, the "Christian American Association", to replace the term "American Plan" after it became associated with the anti-union violence of the First Red Scare.[6][7] Muse used racist rhetoric in his defense of "right-to-work" laws.[6][7]
According to the Conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, the term "right to work" was coined by Dallas Morning News editorial writer William Ruggles.[8]
(An unrelated use of term "right to work" had been coined by French socialist leader Louis Blanc before 1848.[9])
Wagner Act (1935)[edit]
The National Labor Relations Act, generally known as the Wagner Act, was passed in 1935 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Second New Deal." Among other things, the Act provided that a company could lawfully agree to be any of the following:
A closed shop, in which employees must be members of the union as a condition of employment. Under a closed shop, an employee who ceased being a member of the union for whatever reason, from failure to pay dues to expulsion from the union as an internal disciplinary punishment, was required to be fired even if the employee did not violate any of the employer's rules.
A union shop, which allows for hiring non-union employees, provided that the employees then join the union within a certain period.
An agency shop, in which employees must pay the equivalent of the cost of union representation, but need not formally join the union.
An open shop, in which an employee cannot be compelled to join or pay the equivalent of dues to a union or be fired for joining the union.[10]
The Act tasked the National Labor Relations Board, which had existed since 1933, with overseeing the rules.
Taft–Hartley Act (1947)[edit]
In 1947 Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, generally known as the Taft–Hartley Act, over President Harry S. Truman's veto. The Act repealed some parts of the Wagner Act, including outlawing the closed shop. Section 14(b) of the Taft–Hartley Act also authorizes individual states (but not local governments, such as cities or counties) to outlaw the union shop and agency shop for employees working in their jurisdictions. Any state law that outlaws such arrangements is known as a "right-to-work state."
In the early development of the right-to-work policy, segregationist sentiment was used as an argument, as many people in the South felt that it was wrong for blacks and whites to belong to the same unions. Vance Muse, one of the early developers of the policy in Texas, used that argument in the development of anti-union laws in Texas in the 1940s.[11]
Current status[edit]
The federal government operates under open shop rules nationwide, but many of its employees are represented by unions. Unions that represent professional athletes have written contracts that include particular representation provisions (such as in the National Football League),[12] but their application is limited to "wherever and whenever legal," as the Supreme Court has clearly held that the application of a right-to-work law is determined by the employee's "predominant job situs."[13] Players on professional sports teams in states with right-to-work laws are thus subject to those laws and cannot be required to pay any portion of union dues as a condition of continued employment.[14]
Twenty-three states, as well as the District of Columbia, do not have right-to-work laws.
On November 18, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of local governments to enact local right-to-work laws in Kentucky, Ohio, and the other states of its jurisdiction.[15]
In August 2018, 67% of Missouri voters rejected a right-to-work law with 33% voting in favor.[16][17][18]
Arguments for and against[edit]
Minority rights and due process[edit]
The first arguments concerning the right to work centered on the rights of a dissenting minority with respect to an opposing majoritarian collective bargain. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal had prompted many U.S. Supreme Court challenges, among which were challenges regarding the constitutionality of the National Industry Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA). In 1936, as a part of its ruling in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. the Court ruled against mandatory collective bargaining, stating:
The effect, in respect to wages and hours, is to subject the dissentient minority ... to the will of the stated majority .... To 'accept' in these circumstances, is not to exercise a choice, but to surrender to force. The power conferred upon the majority is, in effect, the power to regulate the affairs of an unwilling minority. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body ... but to private persons .... [A] statute which attempts to confer such power undertakes an intolerable and unconstitutional interference with personal liberty and private property. The delegation is so clearly arbitrary, and so clearly a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to decisions of this Court which foreclose the question.[19]
Freedom of association[edit]
Besides the U.S. Supreme Court, other proponents of right-to-work laws also point to the Constitution and the right to freedom of association. They argue that workers should both be free to join unions or to refrain, and thus, sometimes refer to states without right-to-work laws as forced unionism states. These proponents argue that by being forced into a collective bargain, what the majoritarian unions call a fair share of collective bargaining costs is actually financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. An opponent to the union bargain is forced to financially support an organization they did not vote for, in order to receive monopoly representation they have no choice over.[20]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church discourages the joining of unions,[21] citing the writings of Ellen White, one of the church's founders, and what writer Diana Justice calls the "loss of free will" that occurs when a person joins a labor union.
Unfairness[edit]
Proponents such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy contend that it is unfair that unions can require new and existing employees to either join the union or pay fees for collective bargaining expenses as a condition of employment under union security agreement contracts.[22] Other proponents contend that unions may still be needed in new and growing sectors of the economy, for example, the voluntary and third party sectors, to assure adequate benefits for new immigrant, "part-time" aides in America (e.g., US Direct Support Workforce).
Political contributions[edit]
Right-to-work proponents, including the Center for Union Facts, contend that political contributions made by unions are not representative of the union workers.[23] The agency shop portion of this had previously been contested with support of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, resulting in "Beck rights" preventing agency fees from being used for expenses outside of collective bargaining if the non-union worker notifies the union of their objection.[24] The right to challenge the fees must include the right to have it heard by an impartial fact finder.[25] It should be noted that Beck applies only to unions in the private sector, given agency fees were struck down for public-sector unions in Janus v. AFSCME in 2018.
Cost of living[edit]
States enforcing union security provisions in union collective bargaining agreements generally have a higher cost of living,[26][27] however, no systematic analysis identifies union security agreements as a significant cause of this variance.
Free riders[edit]
Opponents such as Richard Kahlenberg have argued that right-to-work laws simply "gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it".[28][29][3][30] In Abood v. Detroit BoE, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted public-sector unions to charge non-members agency fees so that employees in the public sector could be required to pay for the costs of representation, even as they opted not to be a member, as long as these fees are not spent on the union's political or ideological agenda. This decision was reversed, however, in Janus v. AFSCME, with the Supreme Court ruling that such fees violate the first amendment in the case of public-sector unions, since all bargaining by a public-sector union can be considered political activity.
Freedom of contract and association[edit]
Opponents argue that right-to-work laws restrict freedom of association, and limit the sorts of agreements individuals acting collectively can make with their employer, by prohibiting workers and employers from agreeing to contracts that include fair share fees. Moreover, American law imposes a duty of fair representation on unions; consequently non-members in right to work states can and do force unions to provide without compensation grievance services that are paid for by union members.[31]
In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote:
I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members.[32]
Corporate interests[edit]
The unions also contend that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and National Right to Work Committee have received millions of dollars in grants from foundations controlled by major U.S. industrialists like the New York-based Olin Foundation, Inc., which grew out of a family manufacturing business, but now funds primarily conservative think tanks, media outlets, and university law programs.[33][34]
Kahlenberg and Marvit also argue that, at least in efforts to pass a right-to-work law in Michigan, excluding police and firefighter unions—traditionally less hostile to Republicans—from the law caused some to question claims that the law was simply an effort to improve Michigan's businesses climate, not to seek partisan advantage.[28]
Studies of economic effect[edit]
According to Tim Bartik of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, studies of the effect of right-to-work laws abound, but are not consistent. Studies have found both "some positive effect on job growth," and no effect.[35] Thomas Holmes argues that it is difficult to analyze right-to-work laws by comparing states due to other similarities between states that have passed these laws. For instance, right-to-work states often have some strong pro-business policies, making it difficult to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws.[36] Looking at the growth of states in the Southeast following World War II, Bartik notes that while they have right-to-work laws they have also benefited from "factors like the widespread use of air conditioning and different modes of transportation that helped decentralize manufacturing".[37]
Economist Thomas Holmes compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.[38] However, given the study design, Holmes points out "my results do not say that it is right-to-work laws that matter, but rather that the 'probusiness package' offered by right-to-work states seems to matter."[39] Moreover, as noted by Kevin Drum and others, this result may reflect business relocation rather than an overall enhancement of economic growth, since "businesses prefer locating in states where costs are low and rules are lax."[40]
A February 2011 study by the Economic Policy Institute found:[29]
Wages in right-to-work states are 3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic variables as well as state macroeconomic indicators. Using the average wage in non-RTW states as the base ($22.11), the average full-time, full-year worker in an RTW state makes about $1,500 less annually than a similar worker in a non-RTW state. The study goes on to say "How much of this difference can be attributed to RTW status itself? There is an inherent endogeneity problem in any attempt to answer that question, namely that RTW and non-RTW states differ on a wide variety of measures that are also related to compensation, making it difficult to isolate the impact of RTW status."[29]
The rate of employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is 2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states, after controlling for individual, job, and state-level characteristics. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.
The rate of employer-sponsored pensions is 4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states, using the full complement of control variables in [the study's] regression model. If workers in non-RTW states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.
A 2008 editorial in The Wall Street Journal comparing job growth in Ohio and Texas stated that from 1998 to 2008, Ohio lost 10,400 jobs, while Texas gained 1,615,000. The opinion piece suggested right-to-work laws might be among the reasons for the economic expansion in Texas, along with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the absence of a state income tax in Texas.[41] Another Wall Street Journal editorial in 2012, by the president and the labor policy director of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, reported 71% employment growth in right-to-work states from 1980 to 2011, while employment in non-right-to-work states grew just 32% during the same period.[42] The 2012 editorial also stated that since 2001, compensation in right-to-work states had increased 4 times faster than in other states.[42]
Polling[edit]
In January 2012, in the immediate aftermath of passage of Indiana's right-to-work law, a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 74% of Likely U.S. Voters disagreed with the question, "Should workers who do not belong to a union be required by law to pay union dues if the company they work is unionized?" but "most also don't think a non-union worker should enjoy benefits negotiated by the union."[43]
In Michigan in January through March 2013, a poll found that 43 percent of those polled thought the law would help Michigan's economy, while 41 percent thought it would hurt.[44] [45]
U.S. states with right-to-work laws[edit]
Statewide Right-to-work law
Local Right-to-work laws
No Right-to-work law
The following 27 states have right-to-work laws:
Alabama (adopted 1953, Constitution 2016)
Arizona (Constitution, adopted 1946)[46]
Arkansas (Constitution, adopted 1947)
Florida (Constitution, adopted 1944, revised 1968)[47]
Georgia (adopted 1947)
Idaho (adopted 1985)
Indiana[48] (adopted, 2012)
Iowa (adopted 1947)
Kansas (Constitution, adopted 1958)
Kentucky (adopted 2017)
Louisiana (adopted 1976)
Michigan (adopted, 2012)[49]
Mississippi (Constitution, adopted 1954)
Nebraska (Constitution and statute, adopted 1946)
New Mexico (only some counties, namely Chaves, Eddy, Lea, Lincoln, Otero, Roosevelt, Sandoval, and San Juan Counties - adopted by counties beginning 2018)[50]
Nevada (adopted 1951)
North Carolina (adopted 1947)
North Dakota (adopted 1947)
Oklahoma (Constitution, adopted 2001)
South Carolina[51] (adopted 1954)
South Dakota (adopted 1946)
Tennessee (adopted 1947)
Texas[52] (adopted 1947, revised 1993)
Utah (adopted 1955)
Virginia (adopted 1947)
West Virginia (adopted 2016, went into effect September 2017 due to lower court injunctions)
Wisconsin (adopted 2015)
Wyoming (adopted 1963)
In addition, the territory of Guam also has right-to-work laws, and employees of the US federal government have the right to choose whether or not to join their respective unions.[53] New Hampshire adopted a right-to-work bill in 1947, but it was repealed in 1949 by the state legislature and governor.[54] The legislature of Missouri passed a right-to-work bill in 2017, but the law was defeated in a 2018 referendum before it could take effect.[55]
See also[edit]
At-will employment
Closed shop and open shop
Labor unions in the United States
United States labor law
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Employer/Union Rights and Obligations". National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved July 7, 2017.
Jump up ^ Baird, Charles W. "Right to work before and after 14 (b)." Journal of Labor Research 19.3 (1998): 471-493.
^ Jump up to: a b "The South Carolina Governance Project — Interest Groups in South Carolina," Center for Governmental Services, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, University of South Carolina, Accessed July 6, 2007.
Dinan, Elizabeth (January 14, 2011). "N.H. Rep. proposes right to work law". Seacoast Online. Retrieved December 11, 2012.
Jump up ^ Miller, Berkeley; Canak, William (1991). "From 'Porkchoppers' to 'Lambchoppers': The Passage of Florida's Public Employee Relations Act". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 44 (2): 349–66. doi:10.2307/2524814. JSTOR 2524814.
Partridge, Dane M. (1997). "Virginia's New Ban on Public Employee Bargaining: A Case Study of Unions, Business, and Political Competition". Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 10 (2): 127–39. doi:10.1023/A:1025657412651.
Canak, William; Miller, Berkeley (1990). "Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business, and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 43 (2): 258–71. doi:10.2307/2523703. JSTOR 2523703.
Jump up ^ Palmer, Brian (December 12, 2012). "Why Are Anti-Union Laws Called "Right To Work"?". Slate. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Ames, Mark (March 13, 2015). "As "Right To Work" becomes law in Wisconsin, a reminder of its inventor's racist past". PandoDaily. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Ames, Mark (December 12, 2012). "You Hate "Right To Work" Laws More Than You Know. Here's Why". NSFWCORP. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
Jump up ^ Perry, Mark J. (September 1, 2014). "Dallas Morning News editorial writer William Ruggles coined the term "right to work" on Labor Day in 1941". AEIIdeas. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved February 11, 2018.
Jump up ^ Robertson, Priscilla Smith (1952). Revolutions of 1848: A Social History. Princeton University Press. p. 69. ISBN 9780691007564.
Jump up ^ Roof, Tracy (2011). American Labor, Congress, and the Welfare State, 1935-2010. JHU Press. p. 73. ISBN 9781421400877.
Jump up ^ Colby, Gerard (1984). "Decade of Despair". Du Pont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain. Secaucus: Lyle Stewart.
"The racist roots of 'right to work' laws". Southernstudies.org. December 13, 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Ames, Mark. "As 'Right To Work' becomes law in Wisconsin, a reminder of its inventor's racist past". Pando.com. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Muse, Vance (1986). "Making Peace with Grandfather". Texas Monthly. 14 (2): 142.
Mirer, J. (2013). "Right-to-Work Laws: History and Fightback". National Law. Guild Rev. 70: 30.
Jump up ^ NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012: Art. V, Sec. 1.
Jump up ^ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Int'l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407, 414 (1976) (Marshall, J.).
Jump up ^ Orr v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2224, 1993 WL 604063 (Va.Cir.Ct. 1993).
Jump up ^ "Appeals Court Upholds Local Right-to-Work Laws in Kentucky and Ohio". National Review. November 21, 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
Jump up ^ Kevin S. Held (August 7, 2018). "Right-to-work overturned as Prop A fails". FOX2now.com. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
Jump up ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/08/07/missouri-voters-reject-right-to-work.html
Jump up ^ Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, at 311 (1936).
Jump up ^ Campbell, Simon. "Right-to-Work vs Forced Unionism". StopTeacherStrikes, Inc. Retrieved November 14, 2012. Fair share is compulsory dues. A non-union employee is forced to financially support an organization they did not vote for, in order to receive monopoly representation they have no choice over. It is financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. Money is forcibly withheld from non-union employees' paychecks and sent to a private organization. When an agency-shop agreement exists in a school district or county, every employee must pay dues to the union as a condition of their employment. They must pay-up or leave. Should anyone's ability to get or keep a job depend on whether they pay dues to a union? Non-union teachers have struggled in court to try and stop their forced dues from being used for political activity by the union.
Jump up ^ "What is the Adventist Church's stance on trade unions?". perspectives.adventist.org. October 4, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
Justice, Diana (June 1, 2003). "Adventist Labor Unions". GleanerNow. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
"Lt 26, 1903 - Ellen G. White Writings". text.egwwritings.org. Retrieved November 25, 2016.
Jump up ^ Rae, La (August 1, 1998). "Improvement #3: Remove Union Security Clauses [Mackinac Center]". Mackinac.org. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Use of Dues for Politics". Center for Union Facts. Retrieved May 4, 2016.
Jump up ^ "How do I cut off the use of my dues for politics and other nonbargaining activities?". National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Retrieved May 4, 2016.
Jump up ^ Gregory, David L. "1997-1998 Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 392 (1997-1998): Contesting Union-Imposed Fees: Must Arbitration Precede Litigation (97-428)". heinonline: 392. Retrieved May 19, 2016.
Chicago Local Teachers Union v Hudson 475 U.S. 292. 310 (1986)
Jump up ^ Chokshi, Niraj (August 8, 2016). "What $100 Can Buy, State by State". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 26, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Out Of Reach". National Low Income Housing Coalition. Retrieved April 26, 2018.
^ Jump up to: a b Kahlenberg, Richard D.; Marvit, Moshe Z. (December 13, 2012). "Right to Work" Isn't a Civil Right. But Unionizing Should Be".
^ Jump up to: a b c Gould, Elise; Shierholz, Heidi (2011). "The Compensation penalty of "right-to-work" laws"" (PDF). Retrieved December 11, 2012.
Jump up ^ Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "States Seek Laws to Curb Power of Unions". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ "Employer/Union Rights and Obligations". National Labor Relations Board.
Jump up ^ Tuccille, J.D. (2012-12-12). "When Right-To-Work Is Wrong and Un-Libertarian - Hit & Run". Reason.com. Retrieved 2015-05-02.
Jump up ^ "Questions and Answers about the National Right to Work Committee and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation" (PDF). United Auto Workers. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 6, 2008.
Jump up ^ "Meet the billionaires behind No Rights At Work". Teamster Nation. January 27, 2013. Retrieved February 14, 2013.
Jump up ^ Samples, Susan (December 12, 2012). "Studies mixed on right-to-work's impact". WOOD Television. Archived from the original on December 13, 2012.
Jump up ^ Holmes, Thomas J. (1998). "The Effect of State Policies on the Location of Manufacturing: Evidence from State Borders". Journal of Political Economy. 106 (4): 667–705. doi:10.1086/250026.
Jump up ^ Evans, Gordon (December 10, 2012). "Upjohn Institute economist on right to work laws". WMUK. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
Jump up ^ Barro, Robert (February 28, 2011). "Opinion: Unions vs. the Right to Work". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 11, 2012.
Jump up ^ "The Location of Industry : Do States' Policies Matter?" (PDF). Cato.org. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Unions and Growth". Motherjones.com. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Texas v. Ohio, "Texas is prospering while Ohio lags"| The Wall Street Journal| March 3, 2008| Accessed July 18, 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b Vernuccio, Vincent; Lehman, Joseph G. (December 14, 2012). "Vernuccio and Lehman: An Inspiration and a Warning From Michigan". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 18, 2012.
Jump up ^ "74% Favor Right-to-Work Law Eliminating Mandatory Union Dues - Rasmussen Reports™". Rasmussenreports.com. January 31, 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Poll: Michigan evenly divided on right-to-work law". MLive.com. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "SOSS 64". Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. Winter 2013. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
Jump up ^ "Right to Work Laws: Arizona | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Florida Constitution". The Florida Legislature. Retrieved July 11, 2014.
"Right to Work States: Florida | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ Schneider, Mary Beth; Sikich, Chris (February 1, 2012). "Indiana Gov. Daniels signs 'right to work' bill; protest winds through Super Bowl Village". The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved February 1, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Michigan passes 'right-to-work' legislation". BBC News. December 11, 2012.
Jump up ^ "NEW JOBS NEW MEXICO". Retrieved Oct 10, 2018.
Jump up ^ "South Carolina Code of Laws § 41-7-10".
Jump up ^ "State Right-to-Work Timeline". National Right to Work Committee. Retrieved October 29, 2017.
"LABOR CODE CHAPTER 101. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS". Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "Right to Work States: Guam | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". Nrtw.org. May 15, 2000. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
Jump up ^ "A Conservative's Guide to the "Right to Work" Bill". NH LABOR NEWS. January 9, 2017. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Labor Gains Victory as Missouri Voters Reject Anti-Union Law". August 7, 2018. Retrieved August 7, 2018.
External links[edit]
Find more aboutRight-to-work lawat Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions from Wiktionary
Opposed to right-to-work laws[edit]
Wisconsin Contractor Coalition
Supported right-to-work laws[edit]
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
National Right to Work Committee
National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-to-work_law&oldid=864823307"
Categories:
United States labor law
Labor relations in the United States
Right to work
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from October 2018
Use mdy dates from October 2018
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
Nederlands
Edit links
This page was last edited on 19 October 2018, at 18:13 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: b

value: sup

values: Legal Defense Foundation (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Labor_union
mw-redirect
Labor union

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Dallas_Morning_News
mw-redirect
Dallas Morning News

values:
/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act
mw-redirect
National Labor Relations Act

values:
/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Congress of the United States

values:
/wiki/District_of_Columbia
mw-redirect
District of Columbia

values: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

values: Edit section: Minority rights and due process

values:
/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt
mw-redirect
Franklin Roosevelt

values:
/wiki/National_Industry_Recovery_Act
mw-redirect
National Industry Recovery Act

values: Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Ellen_White
mw-redirect
Ellen White

values: Communications Workers of America v. Beck

values: Edit section: Freedom of contract and association

values: Edit section: Studies of economic effect

values:
/wiki/Endogeneity_(economics)
mw-redirect
Endogeneity (economics)

values: Edit section: U.S. states with right-to-work laws

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #008080; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: -webkit-column-break-inside: avoid;page-break-inside: avoid;break-inside: avoid-column

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #40e0d0; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values: display:inline-block; width:1.5em; height:1.5em; margin:1px 0; border:1px solid black; background-color: #d3d3d3; color:black; font-size:100%; text-align:center;

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F2524814

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2524814

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1025657412651

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F2523703

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2523703

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_4_p.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331

values:
nofollow
external text
http://nlihc.org/oor

values:
/wiki/United_Auto_Workers
mw-redirect
United Auto Workers

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F250026

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nrtw.org/c/azrtwlaw.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nrtw.org/c/flrtwlaw.htm

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.nrtw.org/c/guamrtwlaw.htm

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: padding-bottom: 0.75em; text-align: center;

attrs: alt src width height style srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: display: inline-block; width: 31px; line-height: 31px; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center;

values: display: inline-block; margin-left: 4px; width: 182px; vertical-align: middle;

values: border-top:1px solid #aaa; padding-top: 0.75em;

values: metadata plainlinks plainlist mbox-small

values: border:1px solid #aaa; padding:0.75em; background:#f9f9f9;

values: Edit section: Opposed to right-to-work laws

values: Edit section: Supported right-to-work laws

values:
nofollow
https://www.wmc.org/issues/righttowork/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://nrtwc.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.nrtw.org/
external text

values: Category:Labor relations in the United States

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2018

values: Category:Use mdy dates from October 2018

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values:
/wiki/Right-to-work_law
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Right to work (Verenigde Staten) – Dutch

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Right-to-work_law rootpage-Right-to-work_law skin-vector action-view


text:
Computers in the classroom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Schools often have dedicated computer labs which different classes share for studying and research.
Computers in the classroom include any digital technology used to enhance, supplement, or replace a traditional educational curriculum. As computers have become more accessible, inexpensive, and powerful, the demand for this technology has increased, leading to more frequent use of computer resources within classes, and a decrease in the student-to-computer ratio within schools.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Origins
1.2 Modern Era
2 21st century
2.1 Demands
2.2 Applications
3 References
History[edit]
Origins[edit]
College campuses used computer mainframes in education since the initial days of this technology, and throughout the initial development of computers. The earliest large-scale study of educational computer usage conducted for the National Science Foundation by The American Institute for Research concluded that 13% of the nation's public high schools used computers for instruction, although non-users still outnumbered users at a ratio of 2 to 1. The study also concluded that computers proved to be very popular with students, and that applications run on early models included sports statistic managers, administration tools, and physics simulators.[2]
In 1975, Apple Inc. began donating Apple 1 model computers to schools, and mainframes began to lose their former dominance over academic research.[3] Computer usage continued to grow rapidly throughout this era. In 1977, it was estimated that over 90% of students at Dartmouth College had used computers at some point in their college careers. Walter Koetke, the director of a Lexington, Massachusetts school system commented that, "It's still possible for a student to get through here without using the computer, but he would certainly have to try to do it".[4]
Computer-aided instruction gained widespread acceptance in schools by the early 1980s. It was during this period that drilling and practice programs were first developed for exclusive classroom use. Schools became divided over which computer manufacturers they were willing to support, with grade schools generally using Apple computers and high schools preferring DOS based machines. Hardware shortages in schools became a major issue, leaving many teachers unable to provide enough computers for students to use.[5] Despite this, by 1989 computer usage shifted from being a relative rarity in American public schools, to being present in nearly every school district.[6]
Modern Era[edit]
The interactive whiteboard is an example of computers replacing traditional classroom technology.
The early 1990s marked the beginning of modern media technology such as CD-ROMs as well as the development of modern presentation software such as Microsoft Powerpoint.[3] Other computer-based technology including the electronic whiteboard[7] and the laptop computer became widely available to students. In 1990, the Methodist Ladies' College became the first campus to require every student to purchase a laptop. Governments around the world began to take notice of the effectiveness of this policy, and began financial initiatives to significantly increase the use of laptop computers in other colleges as well.[5] In 1996, Bill Clinton made over $2 billion in grants available in the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, a program which challenged schools to make computers available to every student, connected to the outside world, and engaging. This marked a significant increase in the demand for computer technology in many public school systems throughout the globe.
Correlating with the development of modern operating systems like Windows 98 and the continuing support of government funding, the prevalence of educational computer usage boomed during this era. Between 1997 and 1999, the ratio of students to multimedia computers decreased from 21 students per machine to less than 10 students per machine. Colleges began creating specialized classrooms designed to provide students with access to the utilization of the most modern technology available. Classrooms such as the "Classroom 2000" built at Georgia Tech in 1999 which featured computers with audio and video equipment designed to capture detailed recordings of lectures as a replacement for traditional note taking[8] began to become more common. By 2000, the student to computer ratio at some schools in the US decreased to only 5 students per school computer.
As collaborative classroom environments became mainstream, more schools as a whole began to invest in powerful networks and faster Internet connections. By 2010, many school districts implemented or encouraged "1:1 learning programs" which would ensure that all students in grade school would be provided with a personal laptop.[9] Computers have significantly changed traditional teaching methodology into a more "hands-on" approach, with Forbes predicting that, "Instead of parking themselves in a lecture hall for hours, students will work in collaborative spaces, where future doctors, lawyers, business leaders, engineers, journalists and artists learn to integrate their different approaches to problem solving and innovate together."[10]
Experience has shown, however, that excessive use of computers can be detrimental to a student's basic academic skills. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has compared average student literacy, numeracy and science skills in 31 countries (considering three large cities in China separately). It also compared the levels of student computer use in those same countries. The study's conclusion, after correcting for social backgrounds and student demographics, was that moderate use of classroom computers produces the best educational outcomes.[11]
21st century[edit]
Demands[edit]
The shift in worldwide computer usage and the need for computer skills in today's workforce have pushed the United States government to create guidelines for educators to ensure that students are prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Core Curriculum Content Standards for education are aimed at preparing students with such skills demanded of those entering the 21st century learning environment as well as the 21st century and work environment.
Changes such as this, along with the changes in the ways that 21st century learners communicate, have impacted the ways that classroom computers are utilized. Currently, teachers are tapping into the enhanced abilities of current classroom computer technology by utilizing various Web 2.0 tools to enhance their instruction. Such tools are also being used to extend classroom communication outside of the campus through online collaborative tools. Centered primarily on collaboration and sharing, Web 2.0 computer applications encourage student self-expression; interaction with peers, and opportunity for authentic learning experiences[12] Through the implementation and integration of Web 2.0 computer technologies into the classroom setting, authentic and meaningful learning experiences are now able to occur in ways that have been previously unimaginable. Currently, the learning that is taking place is not simply about typical concepts or facts as laid out in school curricula. Instead, it is about the process of building connections[13] As a result, the awareness of the importance and the value of communication is becoming instilled into children. Today, with a single laptop, Webcam, projector, and an Internet connection, a teacher can broadcast and begin collaboration with any other classroom. As groups of learners coalesce around shared passions online, they experience something that is difficult to replicate in physical space.[13]
Applications[edit]
Classroom computer access to Web 2.0 applications such as online learning communities and interactive educational tools offer a more dynamic learning experience, with direct benefits to students. Web 2.0 technologies that are being utilized within the classroom have made it possible for essential learning to be introduced to students during their elementary levels of education and to be refined through their middle, high school and collegiate experiences. As classroom computer technology is being used for different types of communication—for presentation, for class interaction, and for collaboration,[14] students are required to be readers and writers, editors and publishers; and must be willing to collaborate and co-create with others, working closely together to learn even more in the process.[13] Web 2.0 Interaction involves not only sharing ideas or information with someone else, but also receiving feedback. The collaboration engages groups of people in not only sending and receiving feedback but working together for creating, building, and editing,[14] These skills are a necessity for students' futures as they grow and enter the workplace.
The goal of using such computer applications is to increase peer-to-peer interactions through digital means, in order to replicate real-life 21st century communication skills. One such technology that has gained significant recognition within K-12 education is the Weblog. Weblogs, or blogs, are frequently accessed on classroom computers due to their positive effects upon students. These online journals are primarily used to support communication in the form of presentation, and they provide a useful tool for class interaction. Weblogs allow students to present their own findings and discoveries to an authentic audience. Receiving feedback about course work not just from your teacher but from your peers, or possibly from the outside world, can be very empowering to students. In their eyes, having the ability to publish their writing on a blog suddenly transforms them into authors and publishers.[14] Blogs make students are of careful and conscientious writing. Students are no longer writing for an audience of one. Instead, their words face an audience of their peers as well as countless others whose primary goal is not only to read, but also to provide commentary, feedback and even to critique and criticize their words. By using classroom computers for such means, students become increasingly more cautious and aware of their grammar, spelling and word-choice knowing that they are the authors of a published piece of writing that will reach a wide audience.
Similarly, Wikis are commonly accessed on classroom computers due to their positive impacts. The collaborative environment that wikis facilitate can teach students much about how to work with others, how to create community, and how to operate in a world where the creation of knowledge and information is increasingly becoming a group effort.[15] The implementations and uses of wikis range from the development of group-based writing projects, to collaborative note taking, to brainstorming. Teachers can set up wikis for groups of students, giving them the opportunity to all join in on equal footing to give feedback, to make suggestions and changes, and to jot down ideas. With a wiki, everyone is an author of the wiki at the same time.[14] Additionally, Wikis afford students the opportunity to express themselves using multiple modalities. Therefore, children who struggle to express themselves through the written word, are now at ease due to ability to insert music, graphics, video, and photos into their writing. With the help of this technology, students who struggle with language are now able to create multimodal compositions, allowing them to communicate meanings that were once inaccessible or not fully expressed through their printed word.[16] These ongoing collaborative efforts also reinforce the notion of careful, contentious writing. Students' words are no longer for an audience of one, but instead for an audience of countless individuals. The awareness of this global reach reminds students to be cautious with grammar, word choice and style as they know that others will be expanding upon their written ideas.
Because of their versatility, Podcasts are also commonly accessed on classroom computers. These downloadable, portable files allow listeners to subscribe to digitally recorded audio clips and replay them at their own convenience. Similarly, the use of Vodcasts has become almost as common, as they allow for students to view digitally recorded video on classroom computers. Accessing Podcasts and Vodcasts on classroom computers allows for differentiated instruction within the classroom environment. These technologies provide students with the opportunity to learn at their own pace and the freedom to go back whenever possible and as frequently as necessary in order to check their understanding. Podcasts are offering ESL students, and those with learning disabilities, the chance to review lectures at their own pace for increased comprehension.[14] Many ELL and ESL students need additional support with defining commonly used language as well as with the pronunciation of new vocabulary. Other students, such as those with special needs have difficulty reading and reviewing complex texts. Accessing Podcasts and Vodcasts on classroom computers can easily provide helpful tools to address these students' needs.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Cuban, Larry (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-674-00602-7. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ United Press International (February 4, 1971). "Computers Employed as Teaching Aids". Reading Eagle.
^ Jump up to: a b Murdock, Everett (2007). "History, the History of Computers, and the History of Computers in Education". Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ Haney, Daniel Q (August 28, 1977), "Computers in the classroom- no match for real live teacher", The Modesto Bee
^ Jump up to: a b Johnstone, Bob (2003). Never Mind the Laptops: Kids, Computers, and the Transformation of Learning. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, Inc. pp. 1–8. ISBN 0-595-28842-1. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ Associated Press (August 28, 1989). "Most teachers think computers are boon to schools, poll says". The Deseret News.
Jump up ^ "Interactive Computer Whiteboards Create Winning Combination" (PDF). Innovatis. October 2002.
Jump up ^ Suggs, Ernie (September 7, 1999). "Georgia Tech Harnesses Technology for Learning". The Tuscaloosa News.
Jump up ^ Brown, Jessamy; Jinkins, Shirley (February 25, 2010). "At tech-savvy DFW districts, netbooks are joining textbooks". Star Telegram. McClatchy Company. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ Kembel, George (April 8, 2010). "The Classroom In 2020". Forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
Jump up ^ "New approach needed to deliver on technology’s potential in schools". OECD. 15 September 2015. Retrieved 16 August 2017. Even countries which have invested heavily in information and communication technologies (ICT) for education have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in PISA results for reading, mathematics or science.
Jump up ^ Brooks, Laura (April–May 2008). "Old School Meet School Library 2.0". Library Media Connection. 26 (7): 14–16. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
^ Jump up to: a b c Richardson, W (2007). "Teaching in a Web 2.0 World". Kappa Delta Pi Record. 43 (4): 150–151. doi:10.1080/00228958.2007.10516471.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Driscoll, K (May–June 2007). "Collaboration in Today's Classrooms: New Web Tools Change the Game". MultiMedia & Internet @ Schools. 14 (3): 9–12. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Achterman, D (December 2006). "Beyond "Wikipedia"". Teacher Librarian. 34 (2): 19–22. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ McPherson, K (December 2006). "Wikis and Student Writing". Teacher Librarian. 4 (2): 70–72. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computers_in_the_classroom&oldid=803444830"
Categories:
Educational technology
Computing and society
Hidden categories:
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 2 October 2017, at 15:45.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

values: /wiki/Computers mw-redirect Computers

value: p

attrs: role tabindex class

values: button 0 togglelink

value: span

values: The American Institute for Research (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Computer-aided_instruction
mw-redirect
Computer-aided instruction

values:
/wiki/Microsoft_Powerpoint
mw-redirect
Microsoft Powerpoint

values:
/wiki/Electronic_whiteboard
mw-redirect
Electronic whiteboard

values:
/wiki/Laptop_computer
mw-redirect
Laptop computer

values:
/wiki/Note_taking
mw-redirect
Note taking

values:
/wiki/Image_projector
mw-redirect
Image projector

values:
/wiki/Learning_disabilities
mw-redirect
Learning disabilities

values:
/wiki/English_language_learner
mw-redirect
English language learner

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Computers_in_the_classroom
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Computers_in_the_classroom rootpage-Computers_in_the_classroom vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view