Right-to-Work States: Where Each State's Law Is Written

If you searched for right-to-work states, you probably found a list of names and years. A list does not say where the rule is written or what it forbids. This page gives the section for each state we read, a short quote and a link to the state's own site.

Short answer: a right-to-work law says a worker cannot be required to join a union, and in some states cannot be required to pay it, as a condition of keeping a job. Federal law lets each state decide, in 29 U.S.C. § 164(b). The state rules sit in a constitution, a statute (a law passed by a legislature), or both. We read eight states on their own sites, plus Michigan, which changed in 2024.

Written and checked on 12 October 2026. This is general information, not legal advice; check the cited statute or opinion before relying on it.

TL;DR

• Federal law permits it and state law creates it. Section 164(b) of Title 29 bans nothing. It says the federal labor act gives no approval to membership requirements in a state that prohibits them.
• The rule lives in different places. Florida has it in both its constitution and its statutes, and Arizona has a constitutional article besides its statute. The other states we read have it in statutes.
• The words differ. Some sections bar requiring membership only. Virginia, Kentucky, Wisconsin and Utah also bar requiring dues or fees, in the same section or a neighboring one, and Texas voids contracts that require or forbid membership.
• A list goes stale. Michigan repealed its law with effect from 13 February 2024, so a list frozen before that date is wrong about Michigan.

Official text, as of 12 October 2026

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 164(b), also called section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. The act of June 23, 1947, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, wrote this wording into section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. The same words appear in the Statutes at Large at 61 Stat. 151, with "this Act" in place of "this subchapter."

What it says: "Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing ... 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." Read it on govinfo, 2023 edition.

What changed in 2025 and 2026: we read no change to subsection (b). Its source credit lists only the 1935 act, the 1947 act and a 1959 amendment that added subsection (c). Among the states below, Michigan's repeal, effective in 2024, moved the total. In 2026, repeal bills were introduced in Utah (S.B. 178) and Arizona (H.B. 2464, with S.C.R. 1035). The Arizona Legislature's records list both Arizona measures as "Held in Committees." For Utah, a Senate notice dated March 4, 2026 says a committee returned S.B. 178 to the Rules Committee. We could not load the bill's history page, so we give no final status. An introduced bill changes nothing. The Utah chapter and the Arizona section quoted below were on those sites when we read them.

A "union security clause" is a contract term that makes union membership or payments a condition of keeping a job. Section 164(b) gives states permission to prohibit it and creates no federal right-to-work rule. For the split between the two layers, see federal vs state law.

Where each state writes it

Each row was read on 12 October 2026 from the state's own site. Quotes are exact and shortened with an ellipsis where marked.

What each row adds, read from the same pages:

• Florida. The same constitutional section protects collective bargaining. It also says "Public employees shall not have the right to strike." Section 447.17(3) says its civil remedy "shall not be available to public employees as defined in part II of this chapter."
• Texas. Subchapter B is headed "Right to Work." Section 101.053 voids a contract that requires employees or applicants to be, or not to be, union members. The site lists a 1993 act as the source. That is the codification act, so we give no enactment year. The Labor Code file on the site includes acts of the 2025 second called session and lists no later change to these two sections.
• Virginia. The section sits in an article headed "Denial or Abridgement of Right to Work" and ends "Code 1950, § 40-70; 1970, c. 321." Section 40.1-62, in the same article, bars an employer from requiring payment of dues, fees or other charges to a union.
• North Carolina. The section is a declaration of public policy, and it ends "(1947, c. 328, s. 1.)" The bans sit next to it. Section 95-79 declares certain agreements illegal, and section 95-80 bars an employer from requiring union membership.
• Kentucky. Subsection (3)(a) bars requiring "any dues, fees, assessments, or other similar charges." It also bars payments "to any charity or other third party, in lieu of these payments." Subsection (3)(b) covers a person working for "a public or private employer." The history lists amendments effective January 9, 2017 and July 1, 2022.
• Wisconsin. The list also covers dues and third-party payments. Subsection (3)(b) applies "to the extent permitted under federal law," and a contract term that violates it is void. An annotation says 2015 Wis. Act 1 created subsection (3).
• Utah. The chapter is titled "Utah Right to Work Law." Section 34-34-10 separately bars requiring dues or fees. Section 34-34-2 says the policy covers "private employment or for the state, its counties, cities, school districts, or other political subdivisions."
• Arizona. S.C.R. 1035 describes Article XXV of the Arizona Constitution as "relating to the right to work." We did not read that article's text, so we do not quote it.

The state that changed: Michigan

Michigan shows why a read date matters. Michigan Compiled Laws § 423.14 now reads: "An employer and a labor organization may enter into a collective bargaining agreement that requires all employees in the bargaining unit to share fairly in the financial support of the labor organization." The history line lists "Am. 2012, Act 348, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013" and "Am. 2023, Act 8, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024."

Senate Bill 34 of 2023 is Public Act 8 of 2023, per the Legislature's bill page, and that page's history shows it approved by the Governor on 03/24/2023. NCSL's page records Michigan becoming right-to-work in 2012 and repealing in 2023. The act took effect later: the history line says February 13, 2024. The public-sector section, MCL 423.210, is a separate section. Its current text lets a public employer and a union agree to a service fee, and its history line lists "Am. 2023, Act 9, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024" and "Am. 2023, Act 114, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024." So the 2023 changes reached both the private-sector and public-sector sections. The Michigan law finding guide shows where each lives.

What the words actually forbid

The same label covers different texts. Virginia's section 40.1-60 speaks only to membership, and its neighbor 40.1-62 covers dues and fees. Utah's section 34-34-8 speaks to membership and its section 34-34-10 to dues and fees, while Kentucky puts membership, dues and the charity workaround in one subsection. Texas bars denying employment over union status and voids contracts that require or forbid membership. Wisconsin also bars requiring someone to "Refrain or resign from membership."

So a "right-to-work: yes" cell in a spreadsheet hides detail. If your contract mentions dues, fees or a substitute payment, read that state's exact section. How to run a 50-state survey shows how to compare states side by side. State constitutions matter because Florida writes the rule at that level too.

What goes wrong

1. A list with no read date. NCSL's page says "Updated December 19, 2023" and "26 states and Guam have enacted right-to-work laws." The count is NCSL's, and the page predates Michigan's effective date.
2. A year with no source note. NCSL's table gives Virginia's statute year as 1947. The section's own note reads "Code 1950, § 40-70; 1970, c. 321." Both can be true, since laws get recodified, but a bare year does not say which event it names.
3. The wrong layer. Florida has a constitution and a statute. Texas, in the rows above, has a statute. Cite the text that carries the rule, and note which one you read.
4. Reading it as a ban on unions. NCSL's page says unions still operate in those states.
5. Mixing it up with "freedom to work" laws. Those are non-compete laws. See non-compete rules by state.
6. Assuming one rule for public and private workers. Kentucky's definition covers both. Florida's civil remedy excludes public employees as defined. Michigan's public-sector section is separate.

How we keep this current

We re-open every row in January and July, and on any news of a repeal or new law. We check NCSL's page each quarter for a change in its "Updated" date. If a constitutional measure is on a November ballot, we review in December.

States this page does not cover yet

We did not read these states from their sites, so we make no claim about them. They are the other states on NCSL's table as read on 12 October 2026.

For any of them, search the legislature's site for "membership in a labor organization" and copy the section, its source note and the date you read it. For the federal side, see the NLRB memoranda guide. The complete guide to US law data lists the wider sources.

FAQ

What does right to work mean?

It means a person cannot be required to join a union, or in some states pay one, to get or keep a job. The exact ban depends on the state's text.

Which states are right-to-work?

NCSL's page, last updated December 19, 2023, counts 26 states and Guam. We read eight on their own sites, shown in the table above.

Is Michigan a right-to-work state?

Not any more. The section's history line shows a 2023 amendment effective February 13, 2024. The current text lets an employer and a union agree that all employees in the unit "share fairly in the financial support of the labor organization."

Where is right to work written in my state?

In a constitution, a statute, or both. If your state is in the table, the row gives the section and link. If not, we have not read it yet.

Does federal law allow it?

Yes. Section 164(b) of Title 29 lets each state prohibit membership requirements. It does not create a rule for any state.

Does right to work apply to public employees?

It depends on the text. Kentucky's definition of employee covers public and private employers. Florida's civil remedy does not reach public employees as defined in part II of chapter 447. For other states, read the section.

Is right to work the same as at-will employment?

No. They are separate rules. Right to work is about union membership and payments. At-will employment is about ending a job. Read your state's at-will rule on its own.

For the US statutes, regulations and court rules these laws sit in, see the US primary law API.

Priyansh Khodiyar

Co-Founder & CTO

Priyansh leads engineering and AI at Vaquill AI: the pipelines that pull statutes, regulations and court rules from every US jurisdiction's official publisher, and the REST API, MCP server and open dataset that serve them.