Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Right to Work Bills Surface in the Kentucky House

Representative Jim DeCesare (R-Bowling Green) sponsored four bills, HB 308, 309, 311, and 312, that, if passed, would add Kentucky to the growing list of “right to work” states in the country. The House Labor and Industry Committee heard the bills on February 12th, but no vote was taken. All four are currently posted in committee.

House Bill 308 is entitled “The Kentucky Right to Work Act.” It removes the requirement that anyone employed in Kentucky be forced to become or remain a member of a labor organization or pay dues to any third party union or organization.

House Bill 309 seeks to add a new section to KRS 65 which would remove the provision requiring a labor agreement on projects for the Commonwealth, cities, counties, consolidated local governments, districts and public agencies.

House Bill 311 removes the construction of any elementary, secondary or post -secondary education buildings from the definition of ‘public works’ under KRS 337.010.

House Bill 312 essentially repeals all definitions of prevailing wage. It removes all language related to the various definitions, pay schedule, and penalties related to Kentucky’s prevailing wage under several Kentucky statutes. Further, it eliminates Kentucky’s Prevailing Wage Review Board. It also changes the amount paid to a master electrician for an inspection from the prevailing wage scale to a wage equivalent with what other electricians are paid in the region for inspections.

The basic tenet of right to work laws is that employees cannot be forced to join a union or pay union dues in order to retain their jobs. Under federal labor law, employers and unions can agree to require that workers be members of the unions to hold a job—such an agreement creates a “closed shop.” But states have the ability to override that if they pass laws specifically banning such contracts.

Proponents argue right to work laws create benefits such as faster per capita income growth, faster growth in manufacturing and non-agricultural jobs, and lower unemployment rates. Opponents claim right to work states have lower employee wages and reductions in health and pension benefits.

Currently, there are twenty-four right to work states. In 2012, both Indiana and Michigan signed such bills into law. A subsequent Indiana lawsuit challenging the right to work law was filed by union members and was dismissed in January by a federal judge. We will continue to track these bills in the General Assembly and will post any developments here.

© 2013 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Of Counsel

Amy D. Cubbage practices litigation in the areas of complex tort and commercial litigation, including class actions, toxic torts and mass torts. She also litigates and counsels clients in the area of general constitutional and governmental law, with an emphasis on First Amendment, campaign finance, elections, and other constitutional issues, including the commerce clause, public contracts, governmental ethics, and eminent domain. She also has experience in litigating and counseling clients with respect to energy and environmental matters, including cases involving CERCLA, RCRA, OSHA, and...

502-650-8862

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.