Posted on 03/05/2006 2:02:49 PM PST by Little Bill
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Chapter; Right to Work Act. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 273-C the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 273-D
RIGHT TO WORK ACT
273-D:1 Short Title. This act may be cited as the “Right to Work Act.”
273-D:2 Declaration of Public Policy.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state in order to maximize individual freedom of choice in the pursuit of employment and to encourage an employment climate conducive to economic growth, that all persons shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right freely, and without fear of penalty or reprise, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from any such activity.
273-D:3 Definitions. In this chapter:
I. “Employer” means any individual, corporation, association, organization, or entity that employs one or more persons. The term includes, but is not limited to, the state of New Hampshire and its agencies, every district, board, commission, instrumentality, or other unit whose governing body exercises similar governmental powers. The term “employer” includes, but is not limited to, employers of agricultural labor.
II. “Labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or plan, which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of employment.
273-D:4 Freedom of Choice Guaranteed, Discrimination Prohibited.
No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment:
I. To resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization;
II. To become or remain a member of a labor organization;
III. To pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; IV. To pay any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or a pro-rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of a labor organization; or
V. To be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.
273-D:5 Voluntary Deductions Protected. It shall be unlawful for any employer to deduct from the wages, earnings, or compensation of any employee any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges, to be held for, transferred to, or paid over to a labor organization, unless the employee has first presented, and the employer has received, a signed written authorization of such deductions, which authorization may be revoked by the employee at any time by giving written notice of such revocation 30 days in advance of its effective date.
Every employer who receives such an authorization from an employee shall have a duty to promptly notify that employee in writing that the employee may revoke an authorization at any time by giving the employer 30 days written notice.
273-D:6 Agreements in Violation, and Actions to Induce Such Agreements, Declared Illegal.
Any agreement, understanding or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and employer which violates the rights of employees as guaranteed by the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.
Any strike, picketing, boycott, or other action, by a labor organization for the sole purpose of inducing or attempting to induce an employer to enter into any agreement prohibited under this chapter is hereby declared to be for an illegal purpose and is a violation of the provisions of this chapter.
273-D:7 Notice to be Posted.
It shall be the duty of every employer to post and keep continuously displayed the following notice at such a place or places in the business, establishment, or premises where it may be readily seen by all employees, and it shall be the further duty of every employer to furnish a copy of such notice to each employee at the employee is hired:
EMPLOYEES FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Under the law of the state of New Hampshire, employees are protected in the exercise of their free choice to join or refrain from joining labor unions, and it is unlawful for an employer and a labor union to enter into a contract or agreement requiring them to pay dues, fees, or charges of any kind to a labor union as a condition of obtaining or keeping a job.
Under this law, an employer may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of joining or refusing to join a labor union, or to pay dues, or other charges to a labor union.
273-D:8 Coercion and Intimidation Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person, labor organization, or officer, agent or member thereof, or employer, or officer thereof, by any threatened or actual intimidation of an employee or prospective employee, or the employee’s parents, spouse, children, grandchildren, or any other persons residing in the employee’s or prospective employee’s home, or by any damage or threatened damage to property, to compel or attempt to compel such employee to join, affiliate with, or financially support a labor organization or to refrain from doing so, or otherwise forfeit any rights as guaranteed by provisions of this chapter.
It shall also be unlawful to cause or attempt to cause an employee to be denied employment or discharged from employment because of support or nonsupport of a labor organization by inducing or attempting to induce any other person to refuse to work with such employees.
273-D:9 Penalties.
Any person, employer, labor organization, agent, or representative of an employer or labor organization, who directly or indirectly imposes upon any person any requirement prohibited by this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, notwithstanding RSA 651:2, shall be subject for each offense to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both.
273-D:10 Civil Remedies.
Any person harmed as a result of any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to injunctive relief against any and all violators or persons threatening violation, and may also recover any or all damages of any character, including costs and reasonable attorney fees, resulting from such violation or threatened violation, cognizable at common law. Such remedies shall be independent of, and in addition to, the penalties and remedies prescribed in other provisions of this chapter.
273-D:11 Duty to Investigate.
It shall be the duty of the attorney general and of each county attorney, to investigate any complaints of violation of this chapter, and to prosecute all persons violating any of its provisions, and to use all means at their command to insure effective enforcement of the provisions of this chapter.
273-D:12 Existing Contracts.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this chapter and shall not apply to existing contracts, but shall apply to any renewal or extensions of such existing contracts.
273-D:13 Exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply:
I. To employers and employees covered by the federal Railway Labor Act.
II. To federal employers and employees.
III. To employers and employees on exclusive federal enclaves.
IV. Where they would otherwise conflict with, or be preempted by, federal law.
273-D:14 Severability.
If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.
You'd think a state with the motto "Live free or die" would already be a right to work state.
Good.
Yes, you would.
Most NH freepers blame it on an influx from Southern nieghbors, resulting in a severe Masshole infection.
While I don't buy that in toto, I do hope that this passes.
It would be a huge step.
I'll be looking for follow-up articles.
I guess Walmart won't be opening stores in New Hampshire then. :0)
citizens living in states without right to work laws do not have the right to work without paying a part of their salaries to a private group calling themselves a "union."
This is called extortion and is classed as a crime in all other states.
The unions were politically strong enough in the north and the northeast decades ago to get state laws passed that required workers to pay up to one union or another or starve.
Well, the statute would forbid reprisals against workers for joining a union. On the other hand, it would also allow the store to hire non-union labor even if the existing employees unionize. The $50,000 question would be whether Wal-Mart could announce that it would refuse to negotiate any union pay scale higher than what it would voluntarily pay non-union workers.
Except in Washinton state, which under Queen Gregoire requires union membership as a condition of government employ.
mega bump!
Well, Texas is a right-to-work state and we have Walmarts all over the state.
"The $50,000 question would be whether Wal-Mart could announce that it would refuse to negotiate any union pay scale higher than what it would voluntarily pay non-union workers."
That's just what I was thinking, remembering the Walmart in Canada that closed, rather then unionize.
If a Wal-Mart store is in a position where the only way it can get any workers is to pay what the union demands, it's doomed so it may as well cut its losses early.
But if the store is in a position to announce that it will offer what it wants to pay, and if it can hire people who will accept it, then the union may be irrelevant.
IMHO, unions should be legal, but their continued existence should depend upon their ability to provide value for both employer and employees. In some cases, such as trade guilds, this is certainly possible. If I want to hire someone to install doorknobs (hypothetical example), and if there's a doorknob-installer's union that has a reputation of kicking out poor workers, I may be willing to pay extra to hire a union person whom I can trust to get the job done properly and efficiently rather than just picking some random person who would be cheaper but may or may not be as good. Under such an arrangement, the good workers receive more pay than they would without the union, but I get more reliable service.
Further, if I own a factory and all my workers announce that they want a 3% pay increase or they'll go on strike, I should be allowed to either pay the extra or hire a new set of workers at a cheaper rate, whichever I deem more prudent. Depending upon hiring and training costs, schedules, and so forth, I may decide that it's worthwhile to pay something extra to keep the workers I've got. On the other hand, the greater the disparity between what they demand and what new recruits would demand, the more likely I would be to replace any striking workers.
If laws were written and enforced as I think they should be, unions would have some measure of power, but would only have power based upon their ability to work better than replacement workers.
All Walmart has to do is arrange for the store to become unprofitable or a poor performer, then close it because of that unprofitability. That's how they did it in Canada. That sidesteps it neatly - you're firing everyone, so you're not singling out union members for dismissal.
It's the same way you fire someone who's a protected minority who's being really, really annoying. You fire them based on their work (or lack thereof), rather than personality issues which could be construed in court as discrimination.
And I speak as someone who's been on both ends of that, having been a dismissed minority-race person and as the employer doing the dismissing.
The South/Southeast Tier is more Republican than not. The "immigration" is from the second generation, dope smoking New Yorkers who are crossing the river from Vermont. Orford isn't what it used to be...
As does Florida.
In point of fact, businesses thrive in right to work states.
Ping me if you see them posted. :)
I consider the issue a type of "bellweather" on our efforts to turn the tide in the NE.
The other one would be a change in the current trend in the educational(sic) system.
The strange thing to me are the liberal anti Israel Jews who have settled in some upscale urban neighborhoods.
There may be some union presence, but not like it is in the NE, where the unions have the power to shut down an industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.