4 ms·

Odd that Right to Work laws don't ban non-competes. </sarcasm> Edit: Added tags, just in case.

by deogeo 8y ago

r00fus 8y ago
Is it possible "Right to Work" is a euphemism?
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  Its a whitewashing term carefully chosen. It is a right-wing goal to destroy unions as they might benefit of the lower or middle classes. As the rich and powerful do not serve the people, but only themselves, they favor laws that help companies, not workers.
cperciva 8y ago
I don't see the connection. Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They don't say that workers can't voluntarily join a union; so why should they say that workers can't voluntarily sign a non-compete?
- deogeo 8y ago
  Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement [0]? There's no force involved in either case - workers can choose not to work at a union shop, just like they can choose* not to work under a non-compete. *Until it becomes impossible to find a place without a non-compete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
  - cperciva 8y ago
    Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement? Because (at least pre-Hobby-Lobby) laws have historically prioritized the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations. An employer which compels their employees to join a union is signing away the rights of those employees, while an employee who signs a non-compete is only signing away their own rights.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      The compulsion in both cases is exactly the same - pay union dues/sign non-compete, or find a new job.
      - cperciva 8y ago
        You can negotiate with an employer over the terms of the non-compete you sign. If the employer has a mandatory unionization agreement, you can't negotiate with them to change the terms of that.
        deogeo 8y ago
        Sure you can - just invite the union to the negotiating table. Any contract can be changed if all parties agree. Or even simpler - ask for a pay raise in the exact amount of the union dues.
        cperciva 8y ago
        Asking for a pay raise to cover the union dues is a red herring -- unions do far more than merely collect dues from their members.
        deogeo 8y ago
        As do employers, so I fail to see your point.
- MrStonedOne 8y ago
  Right to work laws say you have to a right to work or not work. That is why they are called right to work laws, and this is why the parent is making that observation, as NCA's are antithetical to right to work. Maybe trying reading in to things a bit more rather then jumping to the wrong conclusion?
  - captainperl 8y ago
    > Right to work laws say you have to a right to work or not work. No, they mean employees have a choice to join a union or not (ie. pay union dues or not.) In other words, they're a legal tool to weaken unions by reducing their membership and revenue.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  > Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They say no such thing. They say that companies can't form agreements to exclusively hire union workers. They outlaw essentially non-competes in the opposite direction. A non-compete agreement binds a worker to exclusivity with a company. The agreements outlawed by right-to-work laws bind companies to exclusivity with a union.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? If you are thinking of "closed shops", companies where the union has a security agreement with the company and the union is free to deny membership to a person (thereby denying them employment), those were deemed illegal everywhere under US federal labor law.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      > I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? A worker can't be forced to join a union even in the presence of such an agreement. The company simply agreed not to hire them if they don't join.
      - vonmoltke 8y ago
        I feel like you are playing semantics here. "Forced to join a union" in this discussion is in the context of "in order to get a job at Company X". Of course this worker is free to forego employment at Company X if they don't like the terms of the employment. However, one of those terms forces the worker to join a particular union. Taken to its logical conclusion, this semantic distinction could be used to justify eliminating just about any worker protection currently on the books.
loeg 8y ago
So-called "right to work" laws are not intended to benefit workers, so it's not particularly surprising.

Odd that Right to Work laws don't ban non-competes. </sarcasm> Edit: Added tags, just in case.

by deogeo 8y ago

Odd that Right to Work laws don't ban non-competes. </sarcasm> Edit: Added tags, just in case.

r00fus 8y ago

Is it possible "Right to Work" is a euphemism?

kevin_b_er 8y ago
Its a whitewashing term carefully chosen. It is a right-wing goal to destroy unions as they might benefit of the lower or middle classes. As the rich and powerful do not serve the people, but only themselves, they favor laws that help companies, not workers.

cperciva 8y ago

I don't see the connection. Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They don't say that workers can't voluntarily join a union; so why should they say that workers can't voluntarily sign a non-compete?

deogeo 8y ago
Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement [0]? There's no force involved in either case - workers can choose not to work at a union shop, just like they can choose* not to work under a non-compete. *Until it becomes impossible to find a place without a non-compete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
- cperciva 8y ago
  Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement? Because (at least pre-Hobby-Lobby) laws have historically prioritized the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations. An employer which compels their employees to join a union is signing away the rights of those employees, while an employee who signs a non-compete is only signing away their own rights.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    The compulsion in both cases is exactly the same - pay union dues/sign non-compete, or find a new job.
    - cperciva 8y ago
      You can negotiate with an employer over the terms of the non-compete you sign. If the employer has a mandatory unionization agreement, you can't negotiate with them to change the terms of that.
      - deogeo 8y ago
        Sure you can - just invite the union to the negotiating table. Any contract can be changed if all parties agree. Or even simpler - ask for a pay raise in the exact amount of the union dues.
        cperciva 8y ago
        Asking for a pay raise to cover the union dues is a red herring -- unions do far more than merely collect dues from their members.
        deogeo 8y ago
        As do employers, so I fail to see your point.
MrStonedOne 8y ago
Right to work laws say you have to a right to work or not work. That is why they are called right to work laws, and this is why the parent is making that observation, as NCA's are antithetical to right to work. Maybe trying reading in to things a bit more rather then jumping to the wrong conclusion?
- captainperl 8y ago
  > Right to work laws say you have to a right to work or not work. No, they mean employees have a choice to join a union or not (ie. pay union dues or not.) In other words, they're a legal tool to weaken unions by reducing their membership and revenue.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
> Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They say no such thing. They say that companies can't form agreements to exclusively hire union workers. They outlaw essentially non-competes in the opposite direction. A non-compete agreement binds a worker to exclusivity with a company. The agreements outlawed by right-to-work laws bind companies to exclusivity with a union.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? If you are thinking of "closed shops", companies where the union has a security agreement with the company and the union is free to deny membership to a person (thereby denying them employment), those were deemed illegal everywhere under US federal labor law.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    > I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? A worker can't be forced to join a union even in the presence of such an agreement. The company simply agreed not to hire them if they don't join.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      I feel like you are playing semantics here. "Forced to join a union" in this discussion is in the context of "in order to get a job at Company X". Of course this worker is free to forego employment at Company X if they don't like the terms of the employment. However, one of those terms forces the worker to join a particular union. Taken to its logical conclusion, this semantic distinction could be used to justify eliminating just about any worker protection currently on the books.

loeg 8y ago

So-called "right to work" laws are not intended to benefit workers, so it's not particularly surprising.