Right to Work

The United Methodist Book of Discipline, in its assertion that every human person has a right to work, states in its Social Principles: “Every person has the right to a job at a living wage. Where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs for all who seek and need them, it is the responsibility of government to provide for the creation of such jobs.” The whole premise of the Social Principles is in recognition of the dignity of humanity, including the right to earn a living and provide for oneself and one’s family. Anything less subjects a person to dependence on another and violates that person’s sense of dignity, a condition not suitable for any human being under any circumstances.

Arkansas is an “at will” employment state which means that workers are free to choose their own employers, depending of course on the employer’s willingness to hire. In the same way, employers are free to hire and fire as they deem necessary within the boundaries of Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act, of course, as well as any applicable union rules and contracts. Though it would make no good business sense to do so, an employer can theoretically wake up one day and decide to fire an employee without good cause. A worker can be terminated for any reason or no reason, and this is the rub for so many who deem such a law as unfair to the American worker. On the surface it does seem unfair that someone with a stellar work record can, again theoretically, find himself or herself unemployed for no good reason, but there are two sides to this coin.

Employers are in business for one thing: to make money, to turn a profit; this is the employer’s “paycheck”. An employer invests a great deal into a business venture and has every reasonable right to expect a fair return on that investment. The employer does not get paid if things are not going so well, as opposed to employees who continue to draw a paycheck even when things are not so good; the employer completely assumes the risk of riding out the slow time, often borrowing against available credit in order to meet payroll and other operations expenses depending on business cycles. To protect the interests of the business, the employer will do whatever is necessary to remain in business and stay competitive. This would necessarily include not only hiring the right people for the right jobs but would also include letting go of those who – for whatever reason – do not suit the employer’s needs. It may seem unfair from a purely one-dimensional perspective because the employer does seem to have the upper hand but then again, one-dimensional does not offer a complete picture.

Beyond federal laws which prohibit discrimination and the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates workplace standards and OSHA which protects workers from unsafe conditions, I would just as soon the government not become more actively involved in other conditions of my employment. I am also not the least bit interested in any sort of employment contract that “guarantees” my employment status because if a better opportunity comes along, I would like to be free to explore that opportunity. This freedom which is the prerogative of every employee is the same prerogative but is also a major expense to an employer who must decide whether to compete for the employee’s services by offering an incentive to stay or hope another qualified applicant comes along. Either could be a major expense due to lost production during turn-over or additional payroll costs.

Either way, each has a stake in the well-being of a company but it must not fall to the government to “protect” citizens in a free-market, highly competitive environment by tying an employer’s hands and forcing businesses to offer what it cannot afford or does not need. One need only to get involved with government processes and how Congress moves a spending bill through a very cumbersome process, for instance, to know that government is incapable of running an independent business from afar. It is blatantly unfair to presume that every business in America can be neatly categorized according to size and issue blanket demands that all business must ascribe to, especially as it pertains to whether or not an employer – who is taking all the risk - has determined, according to sales figures and forecasts, that he is overstaffed and must cut back in order to survive.

It is unrealistic to demand of government or private business guaranteed employment. It is in business’ – and government’s – best interest that government do nothing more than to perhaps provide tax incentives to hire as many workers as possible, but it is a huge mistake for government to manipulate or attempt to artificially stimulate American business or the economy in order to create a false sense of well-being and security, amounting to nothing more than pandering for votes. In the end it could conceivably cost far more than in the beginning and, within the boundaries of established labor laws, businesses should not have to justify themselves and their operational decisions.

Labor is a tough market for anyone but especially so for those who lack the skills or training or education required to land a particular job. For a business, there is not much of a difference. A potential business may decide that it likes the idea of selling widgets, but there is little that can be done with widgets if the market is hungry instead for wadgets. A decision has to be made to provide the wadgets that have a better chance of selling, or business can continue manufacturing widgets and hope for the best. Workers have the same fundamental decision to make in search of employment. It would do little good to train to dig ditches in an environment where no ditch digging is being done or will ever be done. Ours is a volatile free-market economy that is as fickle as the American consumer. It wants what it wants and will settle for nothing less nor ask for more than it can withstand.

Here’s the thing, though. Every human person has a God-given right to provide for himself or herself; it is the reason we work for our wages. However, even though we are free to choose our vocations and even our employers, there is nothing written or implied that we have any sort of right to be hired or retained by the employer of our choosing unless that employer is also in agreement. The employer still enjoys the same freedom to make decisions in the best interests of the business and to provide employment to the workers of his or her own choice.