Right to work laws (“RTW”) aren’t exactly what their name suggests. They allow workers to choose whether they join a union in their workplace and ensure that employees cannot be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. They don’t so much allow a “right” to work as they allow one to avoid union membership and dues in the workplace.
These laws are either touted as increasing worker freedom or derided for suppressing wages. But what is the actual verdict: are “right to work” laws right or wrong for workers?
A Brief History of Right to Work Laws
In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law. The act included three elements relevant to RTW. First, it protected employees’ rights to come together to form a bargaining unit, often a labor union. Second, it required that employers engage in good-faith collective bargaining with those unions. Lastly, it made union membership a requirement for employment and mandated that employees pay union dues.
Twelve years later, Congress passed—by overriding President Truman’s veto—the Taft-Hartley Act. This law essentially reversed the third element of the NLRA, allowing states to pass RTW laws. Specifically, workers were able to decline union membership as a condition of employment and a union’s ability to require duties and fees of workers was severely limited. Shortly after, beginning with Florida in 1943, states began passing RTW laws. By 1947, 10 more states had adopted RTW laws. As of mid-2025, 26 US states have RTW laws on the books.
Why the Controversy?
The central controversy of RTW laws is the battle between personal freedom and collective worker power. Proponents of RTW laws argue that they are essential for preserving individual freedom by disallowing forced union membership and dues. Without these laws, joining a union could be a condition for employment, making workers choose to join an organization with which they disagree—or lose their jobs.
Opponents claim that RTW laws harm unions greatly by reducing membership and financial support (more on that below), eroding the ability of workers to act together as a group. Critics also believe these laws suppress wage growth, as union activity can often lead to increased wages vis-à-vis non-unionized workplaces.
What do RTW Laws Mean for Unions?
There are three primary ways that unions are harmed by RTW laws. For one, unions collect fewer dues and thus have fewer funds for generating the collective bargaining power that unions provide. Union dues are used to help negotiate contracts, hire legal representation, finance legislative lobbying, and more. One study by Nathan Wilmers found a direct connection between union spending and wages, indicating that greater union spending translates into measurable wage increases.
Second, RTW laws lower unionization rates and union coverage rates. Studies from a wide range of academics have analyzed union formation, membership rates in the private sector, and union organizing. One study by William Moore concluded that RTW laws can reduce long-run unionization rates by 5 to 8 percent.
Lastly is the problem of “free riders.” RTW laws enable employees to join a union and reap the benefits without actually joining, or even financially contributing. In essence, unions end up fighting to protect workers who contribute nothing in return.
Nonetheless, the effect that RTW laws have on unions is disputed. A 2023 study by Kyung-nok Chun analyzing six recently enacted RTW laws found that they have “only a small and insignificant effect on free-riding behavior” and “union formation...do[es] not appear to be adversely affected.”
What do Right to Work Laws Mean for Employment?
Whether RTW laws help or harm the economy is frequently debated, but studies on both sides of the ideological divide highlight how these laws affect overall employment.
- Union membership offers higher wages and other benefits. A study from the US Treasury indicates that workers in unionized workplaces make 10 to 15 percent above non-members, a figure that only grows for long-time workers. Union membership also boosts non-wage benefits, including healthcare and retirement benefits, which can reduce out-of-pocket costs for workers. As unions often fight for higher compensation, healthcare, and pensions, it is not hard to forecast how the benefits offered from membership impact employment. Contrast this with wages in states with RTW laws, which were found to be 7.5 percent lower than in non-RTW states.
- RTW laws have effects on pay gaps between workers and executives. As workers lose bargaining power when RTW laws are in place, they lose income as well. The organization and higher-level executives then keep more per capita for themselves. In states that lacked RTW policies, per capita personal income may be greater than business owner’s income.
- Lower unemployment rates are commonly attributed to RTW laws. In 2018, a report from National Economic Research Associates found a greater increase in private sector employment rates, output, and personal income among states with RTW laws than those without. This data led the US Chamber of Commerce Vice President of Labor Policy to write that “despite organized labor’s hatred for such laws, they have an overall positive economic impact.”
Does Illinois Have RTW Laws?
Illinois is not a RTW state and is instead considered a very worker-friendly state. Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a law in April 2019 that bans local governments from enacting RTW laws, instead reserving the power to do so at the state level.
In November 2022, Illinois voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that expands workers’ collective bargaining rights. While Illinois does not have an explicit ban on RTW laws, this amendment combined with a popular pro-labor sentiment makes it extremely unlikely that it will see a RTW law passed in the near future.
Looking Ahead
From their origins in the Taft-Hartley Act, RTW laws continue to be a significant, and often controversial, part of US labor policy. Recent legislative battles across the country highlight their ongoing relevance. The future of these laws will undoubtedly be shaped by contemporary political dynamics and economic priorities, making their impact on both workers and the broader economy a discussion that's far from over.