- Socially/politically disadvantaged Americans
- Ethnic minorities
- The “have nots”
There is a sociological/criminological theory called
Conflict Theory. Its basic premise is
that laws are written on behalf of the “haves,” in order to control the “have
nots.” We must ask ourselves if Right to
Work laws are created in order to allow the “haves” to keep more of their
financial capital, given that strong unions threaten that very idea. Generally speaking, unions serve the needs of
the “have nots,” which is comprised of many Americans who are socially
disadvantaged. If unions are weakened,
it will have a direct negative impact on these groups. As mentioned in other posts, the socially
disadvantaged are disproportionately comprised of Blacks and Latinos (though a
large percentage of Whites are also in this group). When these groups start having fewer
benefits, less take-home pay (given less cost of living adjustments), unfair
labor practices, it results in an increased amount of social ills in minority
communities. Again, I strongly encourage
people to look beyond the rhetoric and see which groups are more likely to
suffer as a result of these laws.
What do you think? Do
you believe Right to Work laws directly (or indirectly) target particular
groups?