3 ms·
> 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 hir
by 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 agoI'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 agoI 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.