You don't restore workers' rights by letting employers fire them for making the "wrong" decision about union membership. 

And yet that's precisely what Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) has promised to do if he gets elected governor in November. As reported in The Nevada Independent, Ford promised during a podcast late last year that he would get rid of Nevada's "right-to-work" law that was passed in 1953. 

"I ain't waiting," Ford told union leaders hosting the podcast at the time. "It can be done legislatively. They can send me a bill. And if they send it to me, I'm signing it."

The promise was undoubtedly music to the ears of union leaders who have long opposed the sort of right-to-work laws that are in place in 27 states — laws that allow workers in unionized workplaces to opt out of paying union dues. 

Critics of such laws have long argued that right-to-work creates an unfair dynamic in the workplace by allowing non-dues-paying workers to "freeload" off the benefits won by unions. Considering that union-negotiated contracts apply to all workers in a labor unit, regardless of whether they pay dues or not, it's an easy criticism to accept at face value.

The data, however, doesn't back up the assertion that right-to-work is inherently detrimental to unions or their members. Nevada, for example, is above the national average in terms of union membership, despite having been a right-to-work state for 73 years — a phenomenon that would be difficult to explain if right-to-work was truly injurious to the efficacy of collective bargaining. Similarly, the American South currently accounts for nearly half the growth in union membership nationwide, despite being overwhelmingly governed by the very right-to-work laws Ford says he wants to repeal here in the Silver State. 

Nonetheless, there is still something to be said about the fact that unions in right-to-work states are obligated to represent all workers in a particular workplace, including those who refuse to pay dues. 

However, while unions see such "freeloading" workers as inherently parasitic, those non-dues-paying workers undoubtedly loathe the union's monopoly over labor negotiations an equal amount. After all, in such workplaces, the contracts negotiated by unions don't allow workers to negotiate with an employer on their own behalf — thereby forcing even non-dues-paying employees in a unionized workforce to be represented by an organization they have, for whatever reason, refused to join. 

The policy solution to this forced representation, however, isn't to compel mandatory financial support for those unions. After all, there's hardly anything "pro-worker" about forcing individuals to effectively pay a tax to some labor organization or be fired. 

Instead, lawmakers should simply allow workers the right to opt out of union representation entirely, ensuring unions can focus on only representing workers who are actually willing to pay dues and support their ongoing efforts to improve working conditions. 

Such a policy has been discussed in various policy circles for years, and is called "worker's choice." The concept is simple enough: Unions would negotiate on behalf of dues-paying members, while other workers would represent themselves when it comes to contract negotiations, compensation discussions or other labor disputes with employers. 

In fact, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) introduced legislation to impose such changes in 2023, saying the policy would allow "American workers to have control over their own destiny" by fully restoring their right to choose whether or not they wished to have anything to do with a union.  

And at its heart, that spirit of freedom of association is not some radical anti-union sentiment. It's central to the idea of unionization itself. The right for workers to come together and collectively demand better conditions from their employer is predicated upon this very idea of free association, and is deeply rooted in our nation's First Amendment. 

However, that right goes both ways when it comes to membership in private organizations. Sure, workers have a right to join together to strengthen their voice in negotiations with an employer — but the right for individuals to refuse to join such efforts should be considered just as inviolable. 

More importantly, no one's job should ever be at risk based solely on the decision they make about joining (or not joining) such labor efforts. 

Nonetheless, unions have long argued for compulsory membership in unionized workplaces as an alternative to giving workers a greater degree of personal choice in the matter — even going so far as to portray right-to-work as nothing short of union busting. 

Certainly, the union's opposition to right-to-work is easy to understand in purely financial terms. What labor group wouldn't like every single worker in a particular workforce to pay dues? However, the repeal of right-to-work wouldn't result in Nevada turning into some workers' paradise. Instead, it would merely allow labor organizers to get workers fired for refusing to hand over a portion of their paycheck each week in support of the union — even if the workers themselves never desired to be a part of such collective bargaining efforts. 

That's hardly a pro-worker approach to labor policy — regardless of what politicians such as Ford seem to think is wrong with the status quo. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.