6 ms·

I'll just copy this section of the right-to-work article on Wikipedia,[1] because I've sat here trying to explain it to myself for a while and realized there is

I'll just copy this section of the right-to-work article on Wikipedia,[1] because I've sat here trying to explain it to myself for a while and realized there isn't a better encapsulation of it: - Besides the U.S. Supreme Court, other proponents of right-to-work laws also point to the Constitution and the right to freedom of association. They argue that workers should both be free to join unions or to refrain, and thus, sometimes refer to states without right-to-work laws as forced unionism states. These proponents argue that by being forced into a collective bargain, what the majoritarian unions call a fair share of collective bargaining costs, is actually financial coercion and a violation of freedom of choice. An opponent to the union bargain is forced to financially support an organization for which they did not vote in order to receive monopoly representation for which they have no choice. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

revolvingocelot 5y ago
Whereas Canada's decision on this topic is almost the exact opposite, using almost the same logic. "Fascinating". >In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off and compulsory checkoff)[1] is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour (trade unions) and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later." Historically, in some workplaces, some workers refused to pay dues to the union even after benefiting from wage and benefit improvements negotiated by the union representatives, resulting in friction and violence as they were seen as 'free-loaders;' at the same time, absence of a peaceful grievance settlement mechanism created industrial instability as union members often walked off the job. The compromise was designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of collective bargaining, such as higher wages or health insurance. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > using almost the same logic This appears to be completely separate logic? A balance of interests, in the Canadian case, and an inaliable right, in the U.S. one.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    There is no inalienable right to be hired. Freedom of contract is a stronger right in the US and one that "right-to-work" states put restrictions on.
    - brightball 5y ago
      How so? One of the big perks of right to work states is that non-compete agreements are virtually unenforceable because no agreement can prevent you from earning a living to provide for yourself and your family.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        No? In fact, the correlation goes the other way - most states which ban unions security clauses in contracts have legally enforceable non-competes whereas California (for instance) which has no such ban on voluntary contract does not allow for non-competes. Regardless, "right to work" is more about banning certain union contracts than about providing some "right" to have a job or anything like that.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        "Right to work" has absolutely nothing to do with noncompetes. Edited for precision in response to whimsicalism's reply: The extent of right to work laws is that union contracts (or I guess any contract) cannot require all employees to pay union fees as part of the union contract. That's it. There's no further restrictions on employers, only this particular restriction on employer-union contracts.
whimsicalism 5y ago
Yes, right to work states limit the freedom of association by making it illegal for private businesses to agree to certain contracts that are legal in the rest of the US. I'm downvoted, but that is literally what right-to-work is.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  Former IBEW Local 58 member here That take seems very myopic and lacks nuance. There were entire jobsites (which had multiple crews from different companies) that we couldn't work on unless we were members. That's illegal in right-to-work states. It doesn't limit the freedom of association - I suggest it prevents discrimination by association.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Yes, entering into a contract limiting a jobsite to union workers is prohibited by right-to-work, ie. an abridgement of freedom of contract. I am curious how this works with agency fees though - it shouldn't be legal to require union membership, but it might be legal to require agency fees paid to a union.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Freedom of association broadly implies both the freedom to associate with whom you choose, and the freedom to refuse to associate with whom you choose. If the law requires you to associate with people, that's a restriction on freedom (and yes, this argument extends to things like civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but the consensus seems to be that discrimination based on protected classes trumps freedom of association, although this can get murky in some situations, e.g. private golf clubs or where religious freedom gets involved). So it absolutely limits freedom of association by preventing organizations from choosing whom they associate with. Requiring you to employ someone can hardly be seen as a "freedom". Whether such a restriction is ethical or not, and whether such a restriction is constitutional or not are two different questions (and those two questions, and the question of whether it is a restriction on freedom of association may have different answers!).

revolvingocelot 5y ago

Whereas Canada's decision on this topic is almost the exact opposite, using almost the same logic. "Fascinating". >In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off and compulsory checkoff)[1] is a workplace compromise arising from jurisprudence struck between organized labour (trade unions) and employers that guarantees employers industrial stability by requiring all workers affected by a collective agreement to pay dues to the union by mandatory deduction in exchange for the union agreement to "work now, grieve later." Historically, in some workplaces, some workers refused to pay dues to the union even after benefiting from wage and benefit improvements negotiated by the union representatives, resulting in friction and violence as they were seen as 'free-loaders;' at the same time, absence of a peaceful grievance settlement mechanism created industrial instability as union members often walked off the job. The compromise was designed to ensure that no employee will opt out of the union simply to avoid dues yet reap the benefits of collective bargaining, such as higher wages or health insurance. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> using almost the same logic This appears to be completely separate logic? A balance of interests, in the Canadian case, and an inaliable right, in the U.S. one.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  There is no inalienable right to be hired. Freedom of contract is a stronger right in the US and one that "right-to-work" states put restrictions on.
  - brightball 5y ago
    How so? One of the big perks of right to work states is that non-compete agreements are virtually unenforceable because no agreement can prevent you from earning a living to provide for yourself and your family.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      No? In fact, the correlation goes the other way - most states which ban unions security clauses in contracts have legally enforceable non-competes whereas California (for instance) which has no such ban on voluntary contract does not allow for non-competes. Regardless, "right to work" is more about banning certain union contracts than about providing some "right" to have a job or anything like that.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      "Right to work" has absolutely nothing to do with noncompetes. Edited for precision in response to whimsicalism's reply: The extent of right to work laws is that union contracts (or I guess any contract) cannot require all employees to pay union fees as part of the union contract. That's it. There's no further restrictions on employers, only this particular restriction on employer-union contracts.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Yes, right to work states limit the freedom of association by making it illegal for private businesses to agree to certain contracts that are legal in the rest of the US. I'm downvoted, but that is literally what right-to-work is.

andrew_ 5y ago
Former IBEW Local 58 member here That take seems very myopic and lacks nuance. There were entire jobsites (which had multiple crews from different companies) that we couldn't work on unless we were members. That's illegal in right-to-work states. It doesn't limit the freedom of association - I suggest it prevents discrimination by association.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Yes, entering into a contract limiting a jobsite to union workers is prohibited by right-to-work, ie. an abridgement of freedom of contract. I am curious how this works with agency fees though - it shouldn't be legal to require union membership, but it might be legal to require agency fees paid to a union.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Freedom of association broadly implies both the freedom to associate with whom you choose, and the freedom to refuse to associate with whom you choose. If the law requires you to associate with people, that's a restriction on freedom (and yes, this argument extends to things like civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, but the consensus seems to be that discrimination based on protected classes trumps freedom of association, although this can get murky in some situations, e.g. private golf clubs or where religious freedom gets involved). So it absolutely limits freedom of association by preventing organizations from choosing whom they associate with. Requiring you to employ someone can hardly be seen as a "freedom". Whether such a restriction is ethical or not, and whether such a restriction is constitutional or not are two different questions (and those two questions, and the question of whether it is a restriction on freedom of association may have different answers!).