During American civil war, the Northern region was being identified as states that were free and ones which opposed Confederacy and slavery. The struggle against secession as well as slavery obscured the reality. As early as 1796, the terms South and North were used as a warning against dangers of political differences which existed, bringing forth prevalence of unions in the North more than the South. In the North, West, and Midwest states, development was majorly characterized by a system of agricultural diversity, commercial vigor, and free labor. Towards the end of World War 11, labor and politics in the North West, and Midwest states were having a unionization rate of approximately 40 per cent (Minchin, 2006). The New Deal party of Northern States was favoring formation of Unions unlike in the South. In the Southern States, there was low unionization rate and also the political climate did not favor the formation of unions. The Southern reactionary politics had pulled the political economy of America to the right, hence becoming a barrier to the establishment of a social welfare style similar to that of Europe and also undermined the formation of unions. Therefore, due to social and political goodwill, union prevalence in the North, Midwest, and Western States of America was high as compared to the Southern States which faced united hostility of both social and political will towards union formation.

Back in the 19th century, labor unions of the Southern States were weak in comparison to the ones in the North, West, and Midwest States. Union weakness denied workers in the Southern States their rights and benefits having their labor union (Rathzel & Uzzel, 2013). The wages which were offered to workers in the Southern States were relatively low leading to a wide wage difference between the South and North, West, and Midwest states. Also, there were limited social welfare benefits offered to workers in the South.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Several measures were put in place so as to address the problem of union organization in South States and build strong unions which would be equivalent to the ones in the North. Unions which were based in Northern, Western, and Midwest States made attempts of negotiating with the Southern State's government so that it may support formation and growth of vibrant labor union. (Eaton, 1992). Most of the measures to address the problem of unionization in the South failed. Union campaigns in the South continued to be championed including textile union's efforts organizing southern textiles whose major drive was at J.P. Steves and cannon Mills. Many of these attempts to establish a union in the South failed due to the collapsing of private sector unions during the 1980s.The successes which were achieved included organizing among the workers of public sector drives such as the Memphis sanitation workers whose campaign attracted the attention of Martin Luther King.

Unlike in the North, West, and Midwest states, the Southern unions faced a lot of challenges and were defeated by employers who always remained hostile and not ready to allow their workers to form unions. According to Rathzel &Uzzel (2013), "anti-unionism had practically replaced racism as the South's signature prejudice, and union drives were stymied by personal appeals by employers, the layoff of union activists, and threats to close plants rather than sign a union contract''. Employers in the South who were anti-union were supported by clergy whose churches seemed to have subsidized by employers who were anti-union, by politicians who had the commitment of bringing industry to Southern States, as well as vigilantes and police who abused and assaulted union organizers and activists. At the same time, in the North, West, and Midwest states, union establishment was being encouraged by both the politicians and clergy.

The low prevalence of unions in the South was also due to racism which was highly prevalent in the region. Repeatedly, campaigns for union organization were overpowered especially with the refusal of white workers in collaborating in forming one union with their black worker's counterparts (Eaton, 1992).In joining with the black workers, employers threated that the union would make white workers not to enjoy the privileges which were associated with racism.

Unlike in the North, West, and Midwest states where union formation had a political goodwill, in the South, there was united hostility of Southern social and political elites towards unions. The elites of Southern were also willing to openly tolerate actions that were illegal against unions. A free hand business was being given by the leaders against unions as well as labor. This was because the leaders were seeking to increase the income of South through the attraction of investment capital from outside. To attract investors, the southern workers' wages was maintained at low levels. A continuous anti-union stand was required so that wages would remain low because to southern leaders, low wages would be a major reason for investors and industry to be attracted to the south, as well as workers who were poorly educated as well as social capital which was poor. According to North (1998), ''while allowing some parts of the South to lure foot-loose northern industry, the low-road has proven a poor long-term development strategy because it cannot insulate the South from other low-wage competition''. The consistency lack of South to capitalize in social and human capital like their Northern, Western, and Midwest states counterparts, made much of the South have very little to give expect labor that had no specialization and one with low wages. Through developing work specialties, the strategies which followed in the southern and northern regions insulated their competition of low wage that decimated textile as well as other manufacturing industries of the south in the 1980s and 1990s.

Some regions of the South such as North Carolina, successfully developed their local industry as well as attracting outside investors from North by creating a workforce that was skilled in an environment that was conducive (Eaton, 1992). Economically, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Chapel Hill resemble San Jose, New York, and Boston because they were able to follow a high strategy road development map in emphasizing efficient and creative labor which was supported by social and human capital investments.

During the first century of America's existence, the South was composed of a bunch of farms. After America's independence, manufacturing started to take off in the North, while the Southern States continued with slavery and agriculture. It was due to the Civil War that slavery was abolished. In the 1880s, the South started shifting its focus from agriculture to manufacturing. In the 1860s, the Southern States were still dependent on agriculture, and by 1815, cotton had become one of its most valuable United States' export. Despite the South producing two-thirds of the world's cotton, its manufacturing capability was highly limited (Waterman, 2017). The North, West, and Midwest states, on the other hand, were towards attaining its manufacturing and commercial economy which made it possible for them to win during wars. Northerners also produced 17 times more woolen and cotton textiles than their Southerner's counterparts. Despite the South dependence on Agriculture, farmers from the North were performing better than them. Agriculture in the South was labor intensive while in the North it was increasingly becoming mechanized. Therefore, due to plenty of lands, and cheap labor in the Southern States and also to have high production per unit area as in the North, manufacturing was shifting to the south. In the South, there was great wealth which was primarily tied up to slave labor.

The right-to-work laws are concerned with labor unions as well company workers. Through the law, employees are permitted to work in unionized environments without paying union regular dues or joining the union (Mosoetsa & Williams, 2012). Also, employees are at liberty to cancel their membership of the union in which they are registered at any time without having their jobs lost. Under the law, employees are entitled to an equal and fair representation to their union in case they are part of the company's bargaining unit.

The right-to-work requires workplaces that are unionized to become ''open shops'' in company's where it is optional for a union membership. This is in contrast to the ''closed shop'' traditional method where membership to a union is mandatory. For non-union employees, their regular dues are not deducted from their paychecks, although the union still covers them. Occasionally, they are forced to pay the cost due to the representation by the union in their working welfare matters such as when the union acts on their behalf in pursuit of their grievances (Rathzel & Uzzel, 2013). The right-to-work laws are practiced at an individual state level. The laws exist in 27 U.S States, commonly in the Midwestern, Western, and Southern. The laws are under the federal 1947 Taft-Hartley act. Within the right-to-work law, there are other distinctions which are made based on the people who are employed by the municipal, the state as well as those whose employer are private sectors, with states that are union shops hence workers need to pay for being represented by union so that they retain or obtain their job (Minchin, 2006). Right-to-work laws also allow agency shop in which employees pay their share to the union for its representation, usually, the amount paid is less than the union dues, and the employees do not join the union as a member.

Currently, the Federal government functions nationwide under open shop rules, although the union represents many of the employees. Unions representing athletes who are professional write contracts including provisions of representation like the National Football League (North, 1998). The Supreme Court holds that, the application determination of athletes ''right-to-work law''. Therefore, sports teams that are professional in States which practice ''right-to-work laws'' are subject to such laws, and do not require payment of any dues for the union a condition of their continued employment.

Although there are some labor groups and employment rights which strongly oppose the right-to-work laws, the proponents of it argue that it secures the rights of employees in choosing for themselves on whether or not to join and/or support a certain union instead of forcing workers in joining as a term of employment. They proponents also believe that states that practice right-to-work law attracts more investors than those states without the law (Rathzel & Uzzel, 2013). This is because of the company's functions effectively in an environment where threats or disputes of a workplace due to labor strikes are not likely to interrupt the daily operations of the business. Advocates of the laws also argue that foreign direct investment, population growth, after-tax income, employment rates in states excising the right-to-work law are higher than the ones without such a law, and also their living cost in such states is lower.

On the other hand, the law opponents argue that the law enables workers in becoming freeloaders, and also enjoy union membership benefits such as job protection and high wages, but do not pay any cost which is related to collective bargaining. This increases the cost of maintaining and operating a union. Because of the low cost of living in right-to-work states, the employees are paid nominal wages that are lower as compared to the states which do not practice this law (Eaton, 1992). Besides, if...