Right-to-Work States: Complete 2026 State Laws List
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 11, 2026). · 37 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Right-to-Work States: Complete 2026 State Laws List
See the state comparison · Explore the cited laws
Twenty-six states have a current, generally applicable private-sector right-to-work rule under the definition used here. The list rests on state constitutions and statutes preserved by section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, with Washington, D.C. shown separately.
Information last verified on September 11, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article compares the 50 states under a general private-sector union-security definition and lists Washington, D.C. as a separate 51st jurisdiction. It does not classify territories, decide coverage for a particular worker, or treat the absence of a general rule as proof that a jurisdiction has no labor or union regulation. Rail, airline, public-sector, agricultural, domestic-service, supervisor, independent-contractor, and other excluded-worker questions require separate analysis.
What does right-to-work mean, and how is the count made?
A right-to-work state, for this comparison, is one of the 50 states with a generally applicable statewide rule that prevents a private-sector union-security agreement from making union membership or financial support a condition of getting or keeping a job. Congress preserved state authority to prohibit those agreements in 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), commonly called section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. Applying that definition produces 26 states as of September 11, 2026. The denominator is the 50 states.
Washington, D.C. appears in the table because readers often need it, but it is not a state and does not change the 26-of-50 count. The label is deliberately narrow. A state outside the 26 may regulate unions, dues deductions, public employment, or particular industries, and a federal statute may control some workers regardless of state law. This method therefore avoids turning a comparison of general private-sector rules into an unsupported claim about every labor relationship.
The federal statute speaks of agreements that require membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. State provisions often use broader wording and separately address dues, fees, assessments, equivalent charity payments, referral arrangements, or agreements that exclude nonmembers. The table identifies the controlling state authority used for the affirmative rows without suggesting that every state provision has identical coverage or remedies.
Watch out: The National Labor Relations Board's union-dues page still uses an older 27-state count. Michigan's repeal became effective on February 13, 2024, so this article uses the current 26-state count and dates it expressly.
Which states are right-to-work states?
The 26 right-to-work states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Each affirmative row below names the state constitution or statute supporting that classification. Each other state receives the narrower label, “No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition.” That wording does not say the jurisdiction has never enacted a related rule or lacks rules for public workers, deductions, unions, or a particular industry.
Washington, D.C. receives the same qualified treatment but is excluded from the 50-state numerator and denominator. Every jurisdiction name links to its existing at-will employment guide so a reader can examine the separate termination doctrine. The Indiana and Tennessee rows also state the qualifications that matter to their current rules.
The map below shows the same classification at a glance. Select a state to open its at-will employment guide.
Right-to-work states map
26 states are right-to-work states, where state law bars making union membership a condition of a private-sector job.
In 10 of them the rule is also written into the state constitution.
24 states and the District of Columbia have no right-to-work law.
- Right to work (constitution) (10 states)Right to work in the state constitution, usually backed by a statute.
- Right to work (statute) (16 states)Right to work by statute only.
- Repealed (1 state)Had a right-to-work law and repealed it.
- No right-to-work law (23 states + DC)No state statute or constitutional provision bars private-sector union-security agreements (some states add conditions; see the state row).
Right to work is about union membership and dues as a condition of a job, not at-will employment. This map covers private-sector jobs. Rail and airline workers under the Railway Labor Act can be bound by union-security agreements despite state law, and public employees nationwide are protected from compelled union fees by Janus v. AFSCME (2018).
Each state checked against its official source. Last checked October 20, 2026.
Show every state, with the law behind each answer
| State | Answer | What it means | Authority (official source) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work by statute and in the state constitution (Ala. Const. art. I, § 36.05). A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Ala. Const. art. I, § 36.05; Ala. Code §§ 25-7-30, 25-7-34 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Alaska | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Arizona | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | Ariz. Const. art. XXV; A.R.S. § 23-1302 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Arkansas | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Ark. Const. amend. 34, § 1; Ark. Code Ann. § 11-3-303 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| California | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Colorado | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law, but a union contract can require fees only after a separate all-union election approved by a majority of all eligible workers or three-quarters of those who vote, whichever is greater. | C.R.S. § 8-3-108(1)(c) (union-security agreement needs a separate all-union election); 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Connecticut | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Delaware | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.State law expressly allows union-security agreements to the extent federal law permits. | 19 Del. C. § 403; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| District of Columbia | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Florida | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | Fla. Const. art. I, § 6 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Georgia | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | O.C.G.A. §§ 34-6-21 to 34-6-23 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Hawaii | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Idaho | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Idaho Code §§ 44-2001, 44-2003 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Illinois | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.State law expressly allows union-security agreements to the extent federal law permits. | 820 ILCS 12/15; Ill. Const. art. I, § 25 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Indiana | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute since 2012. A private-sector job cannot be conditioned on joining a union or paying dues or fees. | Ind. Code § 22-6-6-8 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Iowa | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Iowa Code §§ 731.1, 731.4 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Kansas | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | Kan. Const. art. 15, § 12; K.S.A. 44-831 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Kentucky | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute since January 9, 2017 (2017 HB 1, effective on signature). | KRS § 336.130(3); 2017 Ky. Acts ch. 1 (HB 1) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Louisiana | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | La. R.S. 23:983 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Maine | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Maryland | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Massachusetts | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Michigan | Repealed | No longer a right-to-work state. Michigan repealed its 2012 right-to-work law; the repeal (2023 Public Act 8) took effect on February 13, 2024. | MCL § 423.14; 2023 PA 8 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Minnesota | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Mississippi | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Miss. Const. art. 7, § 198A; Miss. Code § 71-1-47 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Missouri | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. The legislature passed one in 2017, but voters rejected it in the August 7, 2018 Proposition A referendum before it took effect. | No state right-to-work law (2018 Proposition A rejected SB 19) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Montana | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Nebraska | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution (and by statute). A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Neb. Const. art. XV, § 13; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Nevada | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | NRS 613.250 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| New Hampshire | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. Repeated bills have failed, most recently HB 238, which the House indefinitely postponed on February 13, 2025.Bill status taken from a legislative bill tracker; the official New Hampshire bill page did not load for us. | No state right-to-work law (2025 HB 238 killed) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| New Jersey | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| New Mexico | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.State law expressly allows union-security agreements to the extent federal law permits. | NMSA 1978, § 50-4-35 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| New York | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| North Carolina | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-78, 95-79 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| North Dakota | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership.A union may charge a nonmember the actual cost of grievance representation the worker asks for in writing (N.D.C.C. § 34-01-14.1). | N.D.C.C. § 34-01-14 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Ohio | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Oklahoma | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution since 2001 (State Question 695). A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Okla. Const. art. XXIII, § 1A (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Oregon | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.State law expressly allows union-security agreements to the extent federal law permits. | ORS 663.125(1); 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Pennsylvania | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Rhode Island | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| South Carolina | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | S.C. Code Ann. § 41-7-30 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| South Dakota | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work in the state constitution since 1946 (and by statute). A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | S.D. Const. art. VI, § 2; SDCL § 60-8-3 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Tennessee | Right to work (constitution) | Right to work by statute, and since 2022 also in the state constitution (art. XI, § 19) after voters approved an amendment. | Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 19; Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-201 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Texas | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be denied because of union membership or nonmembership. | Tex. Lab. Code § 101.052 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Utah | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Utah Code §§ 34-34-8, 34-34-10 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Vermont | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Virginia | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Va. Code § 40.1-62 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Washington | No right-to-work law | No right-to-work law. A union contract can require covered private-sector workers to pay union fees, usually after 30 days (7 days in construction), as federal law allows; workers who object can limit payment to representation costs.A negative finding: no state right-to-work law was located. Federal law leaves this choice to each state. | No state right-to-work statute or constitutional provision found; 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| West Virginia | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute since 2016 (the Workplace Freedom Act). The state supreme court upheld the law in 2020. | W.Va. Code § 21-5G-2 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Wisconsin | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute since March 11, 2015 (2015 Wisconsin Act 1). | Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3) (opens the official source in a new tab) |
| Wyoming | Right to work (statute) | Right to work by statute. A job cannot be conditioned on union membership or on paying union dues or fees. | Wyo. Stat. §§ 27-7-109, 27-7-111 (opens the official source in a new tab) |
General legal information, not legal advice. Laws change, and how a rule applies depends on facts this map cannot see. Check the official source for your state, and talk to a licensed attorney in that state about your situation.
The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.
| State or district | Classification as of September 11, 2026 | Authority and scope note |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This label does not decide public-sector or specialized statutory coverage. |
| Maine | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Other collective-bargaining and employment rules remain outside this label. |
| Massachusetts | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | The row does not address every public or industry-specific rule. |
| New Hampshire | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This does not resolve every dues, deduction, or representation issue. |
| New Jersey | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Other state and federal labor protections may apply. |
| New York | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | New York has sectoral labor provisions, so this row must not be read as “no right-to-work-related rule ever.” |
| Pennsylvania | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | The classification is limited to the statewide general private-sector definition. |
| Rhode Island | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This qualified label does not address every labor relationship. |
| Vermont | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This label does not eliminate other state or federal union rules. |
The table below covers 12 states in the Midwest.
| State or district | Classification as of September 11, 2026 | Authority and scope note |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This label is limited to a generally applicable statewide private-sector rule. |
| Indiana | Right-to-work state | Ind. Code § 22-6-6-8 bars specified membership and payment conditions. Read it with § 1 exclusions, § 2's federal-law limit, § 3's treatment of building and construction industry law, and § 13 for agreements in effect on March 14, 2012. |
| Iowa | Right-to-work state | Iowa Code §§ 731.1, 731.4, and 731.8 prohibit compulsory dues or charges and expressly account for Railway Labor Act coverage. |
| Kansas | Right-to-work state | Kan. Const. art. 15, § 12 protects employment against both membership and nonmembership exclusions. |
| Michigan | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Michigan 2023 PA 8 repealed the former private-sector rule effective February 13, 2024. |
| Minnesota | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | The classification does not negate separate labor-relations laws. |
| Missouri | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This date-specific label does not claim Missouri has no related labor regulation. |
| Nebraska | Right-to-work state | Neb. Const. art. XV, § 13 rejects employment exclusion based on union membership or nonmembership; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217 implements it. |
| North Dakota | Right-to-work state | N.D. Cent. Code §§ 34-01-14 and 34-01-14.1 apply, with a limited actual-expense rule when a nonunion employee requests grievance representation in writing. |
| Ohio | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This label does not decide narrower statutory or public-sector questions. |
| South Dakota | Right-to-work state | S.D. Const. art. VI, § 2 and S.D. Codified Laws § 60-8-3 prohibit employment denial based on union membership or nonmembership. |
| Wisconsin | Right-to-work state | Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3) covers membership, dues, and specified third-party payments to the extent federal law permits. |
The table below covers 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.
| State or district | Classification as of September 11, 2026 | Authority and scope note |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Right-to-work state | Ala. Const. art. I, § 36.05 addresses membership, nonmembership, and payment conditions, subject to its own terms and grandfather provision. |
| Arkansas | Right-to-work state | Ark. Const. amend. 34, §§ 1-2 and Ark. Code § 11-3-303 supply the statewide rule. |
| Delaware | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Other labor and union rules may still apply. |
| Florida | Right-to-work state | Fla. Const. art. I, § 6 protects work based on membership or nonmembership while preserving collective bargaining. |
| Georgia | Right-to-work state | O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 bars specified membership and payment conditions; current Georgia DOL guidance confirms the rule. |
| Kentucky | Right-to-work state | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 336.130(3) addresses public and private employers and specified dues or equivalent charity payments. |
| Louisiana | Right-to-work state | La. Rev. Stat. § 23:983 bars specified membership, dues, fee, assessment, and other-charge conditions. |
| Maryland | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This is a qualified statewide private-sector classification only. |
| Mississippi | Right-to-work state | Miss. Const. art. 7, § 198A addresses membership and payment conditions and expressly excludes Railway Labor Act employment. |
| North Carolina | Right-to-work state | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-80, 95-82, and 95-100 supply the private-sector rule and exclude state and local public employment from Article 10. |
| Oklahoma | Right-to-work state | Okla. Const. art. XXIII, § 1A covers membership, refraining from membership, and specified payment conditions. |
| South Carolina | Right-to-work state | S.C. Code § 41-7-30 bars specified membership, nonmembership, and payment conditions. |
| Tennessee | Right-to-work state | Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 19 bars denial of employment based on union membership, affiliation, resignation, or refusal to join. Tennessee DOL's current poster identifies Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-201 et seq. and summarizes related exclusion, dues, and maintenance-of-membership rules, including a municipal exception for the last rule. |
| Texas | Right-to-work state | Tex. Labor Code §§ 101.052-.053 protect employment based on both membership and nonmembership. |
| Virginia | Right-to-work state | Va. Code §§ 40.1-58 through -62 state the rule and include public employers subject to the chapter's terms. |
| West Virginia | Right-to-work state | W. Va. Code §§ 21-5G-2 through -7 address membership, payments, and agreements involving employers or public bodies. |
| District of Columbia | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | D.C. is shown for reader utility but is excluded from the 50-state count. |
The table below covers 13 states in the West.
| State or district | Classification as of September 11, 2026 | Authority and scope note |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This qualified label does not address every sector-specific or public-employment rule. |
| Arizona | Right-to-work state | Ariz. Const. art. XXV and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1302 protect employment against a nonmembership condition. |
| California | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This is not a statement that California lacks union, deduction, or labor-relations laws. |
| Colorado | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Local, sector-specific, and federal questions are outside this classification. |
| Hawaii | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This qualified classification does not resolve every union-security question. |
| Idaho | Right-to-work state | Idaho Code § 44-2003 covers membership, refraining from membership, dues, fees, assessments, and specified equivalent payments. |
| Montana | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | The classification is separate from Montana's distinctive termination rules. |
| Nevada | Right-to-work state | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 613.230-.300 protect the opportunity to obtain or retain employment and address conflicting agreements. |
| New Mexico | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This is not a blanket statement about all union regulation. |
| Oregon | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | Other union-security and deduction rules may apply. |
| Utah | Right-to-work state | Utah Code §§ 34-34-8 through -10 separately address nonmembership and dues or fee conditions while preserving voluntary bargaining. |
| Washington | No general private-sector right-to-work rule verified under this definition. | This qualified classification does not resolve narrower labor-law questions. |
| Wyoming | Right-to-work state | Wyo. Stat. §§ 27-7-109 through -111 prohibit specified membership, nonmembership, fee, and assessment conditions. |
The table is a dated legal classification, not a statement that the 24 other states or D.C. lack all union-related laws. A qualified row may still have a narrower industry provision, a public-sector rule, a dues-deduction requirement, or a later enactment that affects a particular worker. Check the current law governing the worker, employer, industry, and bargaining unit before relying on the label.
How does federal labor law affect the state list?
Federal law supplies both the foundation and the boundaries for this list. Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), permits a carefully limited form of union-security agreement when its statutory conditions are satisfied. Section 14(b), 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), then preserves state and territorial laws that prohibit agreements requiring union membership as a condition of employment. Section 9(a), 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), makes a majority-selected union the exclusive representative of all employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for bargaining over pay, hours, and other employment conditions.
The NLRB explains that most private-sector employees are covered, but federal, state, and local government workers, agricultural laborers, domestic workers, people employed by a parent or spouse, independent contractors, supervisors, Railway Labor Act workers, and certain other excluded workers are outside the NLRA definition. Coverage therefore must be identified before applying the state column.
The Railway Labor Act creates a major federal qualification. Under 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, covered carriers and authorized labor organizations may enter union-security agreements notwithstanding contrary state law, subject to the federal provision's own limits.
The Supreme Court applied that federal priority in Railway Employees' Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956). A rail or airline worker should not assume that the ordinary state row supplies the answer.
Can a union require membership, dues, or fees in a right-to-work state?
In an ordinary NLRA-covered private-sector workplace within one of the 26 states, a union-security agreement cannot make membership or the financial support prohibited by that state's law a condition of getting or keeping the job. The precise state text matters. Some provisions address membership and nonmembership, while others also name dues, fees, assessments, equivalent charity payments, or referrals. Federal law separately limits what “membership” may mean in an otherwise valid union-security arrangement under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).
A right-to-work rule does not prevent an employee from joining a union voluntarily, authorizing lawful deductions, participating in union activity, or voting in a representation election. It also does not dissolve an existing bargaining unit. Under 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), the majority representative bargains for the whole unit, and the NLRB states that a union's duty of fair representation covers employees whether they are members or nonmembers.
That combination explains why a nonmember may remain covered by a collective-bargaining agreement. The employee's decision not to join does not create an individual right to negotiate a separate contract that conflicts with the unit agreement. It also does not release the union from its federal duty to represent the bargaining unit fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination in collective bargaining, grievances, and other representative functions.
Is right-to-work the same as at-will employment?
Right-to-work and at-will employment answer different questions in law. Right-to-work asks whether union membership or specified financial support may be required as a condition of employment. At-will employment concerns the default ability of an employer or employee to end an indefinite employment relationship, subject to contracts and legal restrictions such as anti-discrimination, retaliation, public-policy, and other statutory rules. A state can follow both doctrines, one doctrine, or neither in a particular setting.
Michigan's 2024 right-to-work repeal changed union-security law; it did not by itself rewrite every rule governing discharge. Use the linked state guide in each table row to analyze termination law, then return to the state authority here for the separate union-security issue.
The practical question identifies the doctrine. If the dispute concerns a demand to join a union or pay a covered charge, start with right-to-work and federal labor law. If it concerns whether a firing required cause, notice, or a lawful reason, start with the state's at-will employment guide. A single workplace dispute can raise both, but one label does not answer the other.
What rule applies to public employees?
The 26-state count is built around general private-sector union-security rules under NLRA § 14(b), so it should not be reused as a public-sector map. The NLRA excludes federal, state, and local government employees from its employee coverage, and state public-employment systems differ. Some affirmative state provisions expressly reach public employers or employees, including provisions identified in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. North Carolina's Article 10, by comparison, expressly excludes state and local public employment.
Regardless of that variation, Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878, 930 (2018), establishes a federal constitutional floor: a public employer may not deduct an agency fee or another union payment from a nonmember's wages unless the employee affirmatively consents. The Court said the waiver cannot be presumed. That public-sector First Amendment rule is distinct from the private-sector state classification, and it should be applied with the governing state public-employment statute and bargaining framework.
Federal employees also operate under a separate federal labor-relations system. The state table is therefore an initial sorting tool for ordinary private-sector coverage, not a complete answer for teachers, police officers, firefighters, municipal workers, federal employees, or other government personnel.
What recent changes explain conflicting right-to-work lists?
Michigan explains the most common difference between current and older lists. Michigan 2023 PA 8 removed the former private-sector prohibition and permits a private-sector collective-bargaining agreement to require bargaining-unit employees to pay membership dues or service fees as a condition of continued employment. The act took effect on February 13, 2024. A list that still includes Michigan and reports 27 states is using the pre-repeal count.
Michigan 2023 PA 9 separately amended public-sector law. Its union-payment provision becomes effective only to the extent the U.S. Supreme Court reverses or limits Janus, or a constitutional amendment restores authority to require the payments. Janus therefore remains the controlling rule for nonconsenting public employees.
Tennessee moved in the other direction at the constitutional level. Voters approved Article XI, § 19 in 2022, adding an adopted constitutional protection to the statutory framework. Tennessee's current Department of Labor and Workforce Development poster identifies Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-201 et seq. and summarizes the related statutory rules.
Missouri moved in the other direction too, but only briefly. The Missouri General Assembly enacted a right-to-work statute, SB 19, in 2017, but voters rejected it in the August 7, 2018 statewide referendum on Proposition A, and the law never took effect. A list that still counts Missouri as a right-to-work state is relying on the 2017 enactment rather than the 2018 referendum result.
Because legislation, constitutional amendments, court decisions, and agency interpretations can change the analysis, this page states its verification date. A worker or employer dealing with an active agreement should check the latest official authority and any effective-date or grandfather clause before acting.
How should you use this state comparison?
Start with the worker's industry and employer. Determine whether the NLRA, the Railway Labor Act, a public-sector statute, or another specialized federal scheme governs. Then open the relevant state row and read the cited authority, including definitions, exclusions, effective dates, remedies, and transition rules. The table can identify the likely legal framework, but it cannot determine whether a particular worker or bargaining unit is covered.
For Indiana, read §§ 22-6-6-1, -2, -3, and -13 with the operative prohibition in § 22-6-6-8. For Tennessee, read the adopted constitutional provision together with the current DOL poster and the current state code. Finally, use the linked state employment guide for termination questions. If a union payment was deducted from your wages without clear consent, ask an employment lawyer for a free case evaluation of whether that consent was valid and what remedy may be available (attorney advertising).
This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Rules and effective dates vary by jurisdiction and facts. Confirm the current primary authority and consult a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction about a specific matter.
Related employment-law resources
The at-will employment laws hub explains the separate termination doctrine and links to the same 50 state guides plus Washington, D.C. Those jurisdiction pages provide the more useful next step when the dispute concerns discharge, resignation, contract exceptions, retaliation, or public policy rather than union security.
Last updated: September 11, 2026. The classifications and authorities reflect the law reviewed as of that date. Check for later legislation, court decisions, and agency guidance before relying on this comparison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which states are right-to-work states in 2026?
As of September 11, 2026, this article counts 26 states under a generally applicable statewide private-sector definition: AL, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, NV, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, and WY. The definition is anchored in 29 U.S.C. § 164(b).
What does right-to-work mean?
It means state law prohibits specified union-membership or financial-support conditions of employment within the scope federal law leaves to the state under 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). The exact prohibited conditions depend on the state's constitution or statute.
Does right-to-work mean an employer cannot fire at will?
No. Right-to-work concerns union-security conditions, while at-will employment concerns the default rules for ending an employment relationship. Use the linked state employment guide for the separate termination analysis.
Can a union require membership or fees in a right-to-work state?
For an ordinary NLRA-covered private-sector job, the state rule generally prevents the membership or payment conditions identified in that state's law. Coverage, the exact charge, voluntary authorization, and federal exceptions still matter under 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(3) and 164(b).
Did Michigan repeal its right-to-work law?
Yes. Michigan 2023 PA 8 changed the private-sector collective-bargaining statute and took effect February 13, 2024, so Michigan is outside this article's current 26-state list. Michigan 2023 PA 9 separately addressed public-sector law, but its union-payment provision is conditional on a change to Janus or the U.S. Constitution.
Do right-to-work laws cover public employees?
The answer varies because the NLRA excludes government employees and state public-sector systems differ. Separately, Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878 (2018), bars taking agency fees or other union payments from nonconsenting public employees.
Do state right-to-work laws control railroad and airline workers?
Often not. For covered rail and airline employment, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh permits qualifying union-security agreements notwithstanding contrary state law, subject to the Railway Labor Act's federal limits.
Does a union still represent workers who do not join?
In an NLRA bargaining unit, the majority-selected union is the exclusive representative under 29 U.S.C. § 159(a). The NLRB states that the duty of fair representation extends to members and nonmembers.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 23 (Labor), Chapter 8 (LABOR RELATIONS), Article 1 (Right to Work)
§ 23-1302Prohibition of agreements denying employment because of nonmembership in labor organizationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, nor shall the state or any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual, or association of any kind enter into an agreement, written or oral, which excludes a person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated
§ 11-3-303Union affiliation or nonaffiliation not to be condition of employment.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall be denied employment because of membership in or affiliation with a labor union, nor shall any person be denied employment because of failure or refusal to join or affiliate with a labor union, nor shall any person, unless he or she shall voluntarily consent in writing to do so, be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 34-6-21Membership in or resignation from labor organization as condition of employment or continuation of employment; application of federal law.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) No individual shall be required as a condition of employment or continuance of employment to be or remain a member or an affiliate of a labor organization or to resign from or to refrain from membership in or affiliation with a labor organization. (b) No governmental body may pass any law,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Georgia State AFL-CIO v. Olens (District Court, N.D. Georgia 2016, 194 F. Supp. 3d 1322)“…t-to-work statute that became effective July 1, 2013. See O.C.G.A. §§ 34-6-21 to -28; 2013 Ga. Laws 192 ; see also…”
- Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland (District Court, S.D. Georgia 2010, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1360)“…eges that Bland Farms violated Georgia’s Right to Work Law, O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 et seq., by barring Plaint…”
- Davis v. Texprint (GA), Inc. (District Court, M.D. Georgia 1991, 774 F. Supp. 638)“…om membership in or affiliation with a labor organization.” O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 (1988). 5 . 29 U.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Idaho Code
§ 44-2003Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment,In forcecited in 3 of our articles
44-2003. Freedom of choice guaranteed, discrimination prohibited. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, (1) to resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization, or,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden (District Court, D. Idaho 2016, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1209)“…the proposed agreement violated Idaho’s right to work law, Idaho Code § 44-2003 (3). The aforementioned provision of…”
- James M. Sweeney v. Michael R. Pence (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2014, 767 F.3d 654)“…Code Ann. § 11-3-303 (1947); GaCode Ann. § 34-6-22 (1947); Idaho Code Ann. § 44-2003 (3) (1985); 22 Guam Code Ann. § 4103 (…”
- Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Inland Pacific Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2015, 801 F.3d 950)“…48 L.Ed.2d 736 (1976). Idaho has enacted such a law. Idaho Code § 44-2003 (2). Idaho codified the Fairness in C…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Indiana Code, TITLE 22. LABOR AND SAFETY
§ 22-6-6-8Certain practices as condition of employment forbiddenIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sec. 8. A person may not require an individual to: (1) become or remain a member of a labor organization; (2) pay dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization; or (3) pay to a charity or third party an amount that is equivalent to or a pro rata part of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges required of members of a labor organization; as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at iga.in.gov
Iowa Code, Chapter 731: LABOR UNION MEMBERSHIP
§ 731.4Union dues as prerequisite to employment — prohibited.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association, labor organization or corporation, or political subdivision, either directly or indirectly, or in any manner or by any means as a prerequisite to or a condition of employment to require any person to pay dues, charges, fees, contributions, fines or assessments to any labor union, labor association or labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 336: LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
§ 336.130Employees may organize, bargain collectively, strike, picket -- Protection of employees -- Conduct prohibited -- Effect of violence or injury to person or propertyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Employees may, free from restraint or coercion by the employers or their agents, associate collectively for self-organization and designate collectively representatives of their own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment to effectively promote their own rights and general welfare. Employees, collectively and individually, may strike, engage in peaceful picketing, and assemble collectively for peaceful purposes, except that no public employee, collectively or individually, may engage in a strike or a work stoppage. Nothing in this statute and KRS 65.015, 67A.6904, 67C.406, 70.262, 78.470, 78.480, 336.132, 336.134, 336.180, 336.990, and 345.050 shall be construed as altering, amending, granting, or removing the rights of public employees to associate collectively for self-organization and designate collectively representatives of their own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment to effectively promote their own rights and general welfare.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Firestone Textile Co. Division v. Meadows (Kentucky Supreme Court 1983, 666 S.W.2d 730)“…ng. The employee rested his claim for wrongful discharge on KRS 336.130(1), which provides in pertinent part th…”
- Pari-Mutuel Clerks' Union of Kentucky, Local 541, SEIU, AFL-CIO Ex Rel. Mann v. Kentucky Jockey Club (Kentucky Supreme Court 1977, 551 S.W.2d 801)“…n card. Appellants claimed these acts to be in violation of KRS 336.130 1 and sought injunctive re…”
- Simpson County Steeplechase Ass'n v. Roberts (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1995, 898 S.W.2d 523)“…ermination of an employee occurs because of union activity. KRS 336.130(1) and (2) provides, (1) Employe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Louisiana Revised Statutes
§ 23:983Freedom of choiceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall be required, as a condition of employment, to become or remain a member of any labor organization, or to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to a labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 613: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 613.250Agreements prohibiting employment because of nonmembership in labor organization prohibited.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, nor shall the State, or any subdivision thereof or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 95: Department of Labor and Labor Regulations.
§ 95-80Membership in labor organization as condition of employment prohibitedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ncleg.gov
North Dakota Century Code
§ 34-01-14Right to work not to be abridged by membership or nonmembership in labor unionIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
The right of persons to work may not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization, and all contracts in negation or abrogation of such rights are hereby declared to be invalid, void, and unenforceable.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2007
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Associated General Contractors v. Otter Tail Power Co. (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1979, 611 F.2d 684)“…t, therefore, contravened North Dakota’s right-to-work law, N.D.Cent.Code § 34-01-14. 8 Count Four alleges that the defen…”
- National Labor Relations Board v. North Dakota (District Court, D. North Dakota 2007, 504 F. Supp. 2d 750)“…labor union as a condition of employment. See N.D. Cent.Code § 34-01-14. However, Section 34-01-14.1 of the Nor…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 41: LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
§ 41-7-30Labor organization membership as condition of employmentIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(A) It is unlawful for an employer to require an employee, as a condition of employment, or of continuance of employment to: (1) be or become or remain a member or affiliate of a labor organization or agency; (2) abstain or refrain from membership in a labor organization; or (3) pay any fees, dues, assessments, or other charges or sums of money to a person or organization. (B) It is unlawful for a person or a labor organization to directly or indirectly participate in an agreement, arrangement, or practice that has the effect of requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee be, become, or remain a member of a labor organization or pay to a labor organization any dues, fees, or any other charges; such an agreement is unenforceable. (C) It is unlawful for a person or a labor organization to induce, cause, or encourage an employer to violate a provision of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 60-8: INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT
§ 60-8-3Denial of right to work because of membership or nonmembership in union--Misdemeanor.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right of any person to work may not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization. Violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Texas Labor Code
§ 101.052DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT BASED ON LABOR UNION MEMBERSHIP PROHIBITEDIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A person may not be denied employment based on membership or nonmembership in a labor union.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Austin v. Healthtrust, Inc.-The Hospital Co. (Texas Supreme Court 1998, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 679)“…on for filing a workers’ compensation claim in good faith); Tex. Lab.Code § 101.052 (prohibiting denial of employment based…”
- the City of Round Rock, Texas and Round Rock Fire Chief Larry Hodge v. Jaime Rodriguez and Round Rock Fire Fighters Association (Texas Supreme Court 2013, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 435)“…1.052 of the Labor Code protects the “right to work.” See Tex. Lab.Code § 101.052; see also Lunsford v. City of Bryan,…”
- Simmons Airlines v. Lagrotte (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) 2001, 50 S.W.3d 748)“…ee of a health care facility who reports illegal activity); Tex Lab. Code Ann. § 101.052 (Vernon 1996) (prohibiting denial of em…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Utah Code, Title 34: Labor in General
§ 34-34-8Employer not to require union membership.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No employer shall require any person to become or remain a member of any labor union, labor organization or any other type of association as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Code of Virginia, Title 40.1: Labor and Employment
§ 40.1-58Policy of articleIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Virginia that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- King v. Gemini Food Services, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1976, 438 F. Supp. 964)“…e of the criminal sanction of Virginia’s Right to Work Law (Va.Code Ann. § 40.1-58 et seq.), the civil and regulatory prov…”
- A. A. Webb v. Robert W. Bladen and Bricklayers Union No. 1 (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1973, 480 F.2d 306)“…t V alleged violation of Virginia’s “right to work” laws, 6 Va.Code Ann. § 40.1-58 et seq. (1970). Webb averred that the d…”
- National Football League Players Association v. Pro Football, Inc., D/B/A Washington Redskins (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1995, 56 F.3d 1525)“…C. § 164 (b). Virginia has enacted a right-to-work statute, Va.Code Ann. §§ 40.1-58 to 40.1-69, pursuant to that authority.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules, Virginia At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
West Virginia Code
§ 21-5G-3Contracting for exclusion from employment because of affiliation or nonaffiliation with a labor organization.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any agreement, contract, understanding or practice, either written or oral, implied or expressed, between any labor organization and an employer or public body which provides for the exclusion from employment of any person because of membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor organization or employee organization of any kind is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 111: Employment Relations
§ 111.04Rights of employees.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (2) Employees shall have the right to refrain from self-organization; forming, joining, or assisting labor organizations; bargaining collectively through representatives; or engaging in activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. (3) (a) No person may require, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual to do any of the following: 1. Refrain or resign from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization. 2. Become or remain a member of a labor organization. 3. Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or provide anything of value, to a labor organization. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- International Ass'n of Machinists District 10 v. State (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2017, 378 Wis. 2d 243)“…the purpose of collective bargaining." 29 U.S.C. § 157 ; Wis. Stat. § 111.04 (1). Representatives may be any person…”
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 v. Schimel (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2016, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1088)“…its own species of a so-called “right to work” law. See Wis. Stat. § 111.04 (Supp. 2016) (enacted Mar. 9, 2015),…”
- Daniel Sarauer v. International Association of M (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2020)“…e, to a labor organization” as a con‐ dition of employment, Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3)(a), then defend‐ ants engaged in unf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Wyoming Statutes, Title 27 - Labor and Employment - Chapter 7: Labor Unions; Disputes and Injunctions; Right to Work
§ 27-7-109Right to work; membership in labor organization not required.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
No person is required to become or remain a member of any labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at wyoleg.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1995
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- General Chemical Corp. v. Unemployment Insurance Commission (Wyoming Supreme Court 1995, 906 P.2d 380)“…ork state and an employment at will state. See Wyo.Stat. §§ 27-7-109 through 27-7-115 (1991) and Linc…”
- Paul H. Robertson, Individual v. National Labor Relations Board (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1979, 597 F.2d 1331)“…pply in this case because of the Wyoming Right To Work Law. Wyo. Stat. §§ 27-7-109 to 112 (1977). 9 .…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wyoming At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
United States Code Title 29
§ 158Unfair labor practicesIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer— to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title; to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 156 of this title, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay; by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this subchapter, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this subsection as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 11,808 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (Supreme Court of the United States 1966, 383 U.S. 715)“…nal Labor Relations Act, as *719 amended, 49 Stat. 452 , 29 U. S. C. §158 (a)(2) (1964 ed.), Tennessee Consolid…”
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (Supreme Court of the United States 1938, 305 U.S. 197)“…of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [1] 49 Stat. 449 ; 29 U.S.C. §§ 158 (1) (3). [2] 29 U.S.C. 158 (2).…”
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (Supreme Court of the United States 2006, 548 U.S. 53)“…76, n. 8 (1984), provides an illustrative example. Compare 29 U. S. C. §158(a)(3) (substantive provision prohibitin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Employer Threatening to Call Immigration? Your Rights in the U.S., Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws: Employee Guide
§ 159Representatives and electionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
§ 164Construction of provisionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this subchapter shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
United States Code Title 45
§ 152General dutiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
First. Duty of carriers and employees to settle disputes It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof. Second. Consideration of disputes by representatives All disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition, in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute. Third.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 48: LABOR
§ 48-217Labor organizations; membership or nonmembership; prohibited actsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
To make operative the provisions of sections 13, 14 and 15 of Article XV of the Constitution of Nebraska, no person shall be denied employment because of membership in or affiliation with, or resignation or expulsion from a labor organization or because of refusal to join, affiliate with, or pay a fee either directly or indirectly to a labor organization; nor shall any individual or corporation or association of any kind enter into any contract, written or oral, to exclude persons from employment because of membership in or nonmembership in a labor organization.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Opinion No. (2003) (Nebraska Attorney General Reports 2003)“…n. (Emphasis added). Section 2 of the bill would amend Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217 (1998) in the following respects:…”
- Opinion No. (2000) (Nebraska Attorney General Reports 2000)“…r organization. This constitutional right is codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217 (1998), which extends the protection t…”
- James M. Sweeney v. Michael R. Pence (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2014, 767 F.3d 654)“…Iowa Code § 731.4 (en *663 acted 1947, renumbered 1977); Neb.Rev. Stat. § 48-217 (1947); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 95-82 (1947);…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 50-1-201Denial of employment because of affiliation or nonaffiliation with labor union or employee organization.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association of any kind to deny or attempt to deny employment to any person by reason of the person's membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization of any kind.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2005
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anthony Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corporation (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2005)“…the replacement workers’ wrongful discharge claim based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-201 (2005), which is Tennessee’s “right to…”
- Baldwin v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1999, 3 S.W.3d 1)“…nced by the unambiguous statutory provision of T.C.A. § 50-1-201 (1991). PIRELLI’s t…”
- Esquinance v. Polk County Education Ass'n (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2005, 195 S.W.3d 35)“…slature passed the Tennessee Open Shop Law, now codified as T.C.A. § 50-1-201- § 50-1-204, which makes it unlawful fo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Sources and References
- Ala. Const. art. I, § 36.05, official Alabama source(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Ariz. Const. art. XXV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1302, official Arizona source(azleg.gov).gov
- Ark. Const. amend. 34; Ark. Code § 11-3-303 (Arkansas Code text, via Justia)(law.justia.com)
- Fla. Const. art. I, § 6, official Florida source(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 (Georgia Code text, via Justia)(law.justia.com)
- Idaho Code § 44-2003, official Idaho source(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Ind. Code §§ 22-6-6-1 to -3, -8, and -13, official Indiana source(iga.in.gov).gov
- Iowa Code §§ 731.1, 731.4, 731.8 (2026), official Iowa source(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Kan. Const. art. 15, § 12, official Kansas source(ksrevisor.gov).gov
- Ky. Rev. Stat. § 336.130(3), official Kentucky source(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- La. Rev. Stat. § 23:983, official Louisiana source(legis.la.gov).gov
- Miss. Const. art. 7, § 198A, official Mississippi source(sos.ms.gov).gov
- Neb. Const. art. XV, § 13, official Nebraska source(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 613.230-.300, official Nevada source(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-80, 95-82, 95-100, official North Carolina source(ncleg.gov).gov
- N.D. Cent. Code §§ 34-01-14, 34-01-14.1, official North Dakota source(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Okla. Const. art. XXIII, § 1A, official Oklahoma source(oksenate.gov).gov
- S.C. Code § 41-7-30, official South Carolina source(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.D. Const. art. VI, § 2; S.D. Codified Laws § 60-8-3, official South Dakota source(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 19, official Tennessee source(publications.tnsosfiles.com).gov
- Tex. Labor Code §§ 101.052-.053, official Texas source(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Utah Code §§ 34-34-8 to -10, official Utah source(le.utah.gov).gov
- Va. Code §§ 40.1-58 to -62, official Virginia source(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- W. Va. Code §§ 21-5G-2 to -7, official West Virginia source(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3), official Wisconsin source(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wyo. Stat. §§ 27-7-109 to -111 (2026), official Wyoming source(wyoleg.gov).gov
- 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), union-security conditions(govinfo.gov).gov
- 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), exclusive bargaining representation(govinfo.gov).gov
- 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), NLRA § 14(b)(govinfo.gov).gov
- 45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh, Railway Labor Act union-security agreements(govinfo.gov).gov
- Railway Employees' Department v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)(govinfo.gov).gov
- Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878, 930 (2018)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- NLRB, Employee Rights and NLRA coverage exclusions(nlrb.gov).gov
- NLRB, Right to fair representation(nlrb.gov).gov
- Michigan 2023 PA 8, private-sector right-to-work repeal(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan 2023 PA 9, conditional public-sector union-payment provision(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan 2023 Public Acts Table, PA 8 and PA 9 effective dates(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Tennessee DOL, Right to Work poster(tn.gov).gov
- O.C.G.A. § 34-6-21 (Georgia Code text, via Justia)(law.justia.com)
- Georgia HB 361 (2013), enrolled act(legis.ga.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.