On Friday, the Capitol was filled with vibrant hues of hi-vis yellow and orange as numerous union workers voiced their opposition to a proposed legislation aiming to declare Montana as the 28th right-to-work state in the nation.
The bill, Buffalo Republican Rep. James Bergstrom’s House Bill 448, would prohibit private sector union contracts that require employees to join a union or otherwise pay fees for their representation. It’s the latest legislative swing at unions in Montana, a state with a deep history of labor activism that has repeatedly resisted right-to-work legislation even as national union density has declined and neighboring states have passed similar laws.
“Blood has been spilled on the streets of my district for the rights we have today,” Rep. Derek Harvey, D-Butte, a union firefighter, told more than 70 union workers and officials representing a wide variety of trades on the Capitol steps Friday.
During the floor debate on a right-to-work bill, the crowd in the House gallery brought back memories from the previous session when union members filled the room, although the bill did not pass in the end.
Greg Ferguson, a representative from Ironworkers Local 732, expressed his belief that a mere stroll through these corridors should be sufficient to convince everyone present to reject this bill. He further emphasized that if the bill were to pass, it would signify that the committee prioritizes power and profits over the well-being of individuals.
HB 448 is essentially identical to the 2021 bill, HB 251. That bill failed in dramatic fashion on the House floor, 38-62. Both bills derive their language largely from model legislation circulated by well-funded conservative advocacy groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, more commonly known as ALEC.
Bergstrom’s bill attracted only four proponents Friday, all but one of whom — Rep. Caleb Hinkle, R-Belgrade, who carried House Bill 251 in the 2021 session — were in some way affiliated with the national effort by conservative business interests to end what they call “forced unionism,” in other words, the compulsion of union membership or dues-paying. Those interests include Americans for Prosperity, the National Right to Work Committee and Montana Citizens for Right to Work.
“The proposed bill aims to safeguard the rights of individuals by prohibiting the mandatory payment of union dues or fees as a prerequisite for employment, thereby establishing Montana as the 28th right-to-work state,” stated Randy Pope, the executive director of Montana Citizens for Right to Work, during his testimony to the committee on Friday. “Regrettably, the existing legislation in Montana allows union leaders to enforce monopoly bargaining on workers, depriving individuals of their ability to negotiate for themselves. They assert their right to forcefully collect dues or fees from workers who have not consented, which only adds further insult to injury.”
According to Pope and other supporters, the bill aims to promote worker freedom and hold union leaders accountable. They argue that if unions no longer have a guaranteed source of dues, they will be motivated to improve their services in order to attract and retain members.
Pope asserted that strong unions do not require compulsory dues, while weak unions do not merit them.
Right-to-work legislation in Montana would affect the private sector, while it is important to note that public sector unions are already subject to the presumption of right-to-work as per a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Opponents testified on Friday, stating that the arguments supporting the bill either misconstrue or misrepresent the actual legal reality.
Amanda Frickle, a lobbyist for the Montana AFL-CIO, testified that the bill’s title is misleading as workers already possess the freedom to choose not to join a union. She emphasized that no one is compelled to be a part of a union in Montana or any other state in the nation. Frickle further added that the proposed bill does not grant workers any new rights that they don’t already possess.
So-called closed shops — in which union membership is an exclusive condition of employment – are illegal under the Taft Hartley Act, a 1947 amendment to the National Labor Relations Act that has also allowed for the proliferation of right-to-work laws over the last half-century.
But under union security contracts, employers can hire non-union labor under the requirement they join the union within a certain time. Even in those cases, “employees who object to full union membership may continue as ‘core’ members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration,” according to the National Labor Relations Board.
A mere stroll through these corridors today should serve as ample evidence for all of you to vote against this bill. And in the event it gets approved, it will be clear that you prioritize power and profits over people.
Greg Ferguson, a member of Ironworkers Local 732
This bill primarily focuses on addressing the mandatory representation fee that individuals who oppose union membership are required to pay.
The opposition from unions stems from their concern about the free-rider problem, which is commonly referred to as the reason behind their resistance. According to the law, unions that have exclusive bargaining rights in a particular workplace are obligated to represent all employees, regardless of their membership status in the union. To resolve this paradox, unions argue that collecting representation fees is necessary.
Mario Martinez, the lead representative for Montana Carpenters Local 82, testified that the loss of that ability has a negative impact on a union and its capacity to negotiate effectively for workers.
He explained that the purpose of 448 is to gradually weaken and reduce the financial support of unions. When only half of the members contribute financially to the benefits enjoyed by all, it begins to undermine the stability of the union.
Critics also highlighted a provision in the bill that prohibits employees from striking during collective bargaining to persuade an employer to establish a union security agreement, arguing that it contradicts the NLRA’s protection of the right to engage in “concerted activity.” Additionally, they claimed that the bill would unlawfully interfere with the contract negotiations between two private entities.
On a wider scale, the majority of opponents expressed their satisfaction with their union and appreciated the various advantages it offered such as benefits, training, wages, and safety measures. They were content with paying their dues.
Jason Hottel from Ironworkers Local 732 testified, stating, “I have personally experienced being part of both union and non-union sectors, making me a statistic on both sides. Originally hailing from Idaho, I had to fight for basic rights such as insurance and fair wages. The only way to earn a decent wage was by being compared to a union worker. The unions have been instrumental in transforming my life and my family’s life. They have enabled me to provide my children with the wages they truly deserve. All of this is why I strongly oppose the proposed bill.”
David Hoffman, lobbyist for Northwestern Energy, testified that numerous major employers in Montana, including Northwestern Energy itself, with its 632 union workers, expressed their opposition.
He argued that the bill would convey an unfavorable and disheartening message to the workers and cause turmoil in workplace relationships.
Montana’s Democratic lawmakers are known for their strong defense of unions, consistently voicing their support. However, bipartisan support against the right-to-work bill is gaining momentum.
“I’ve been a union member 26 years of my life,” testified Sen. Jason Small, R-Busby, a boilermaker who chairs the Senate Business and Labor Committee. “Not one time have I ever been forced to join one, but it’s always been a heck of an opportunity. I’ll be up here, this’ll be my fourth session. Unfortunately these sessions occur during our peak earning time of the year for fixing power plants and everything else. Probably about $350,000 in lost wages into just trying to stop stuff like this bill right here.”
The failure of right-to-work legislation in the 2021 session seems to drive that point home. And this session, related laws affecting unions in the public and non-profit sectors have stalled in committee.
Harvey, the lawmaker, expressed that the memory of the previous session when a right to work bill passed is still vivid. He believes that the strong presence and determination of the labor force during that time left a lasting impression on many representatives. Harvey hopes that these experiences will be shared with the new colleagues, so they can understand the significance of that day. The powerful force of Montana workers who voiced their opinions made a profound impact on the atmosphere within the building.
On Friday, the bill was not voted on by the committee.
