6 ms·

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 (al

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
        There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract.
        gotoeleven 5y ago
        You're saying because an employer is not able to enter into a contract with a union that requires a 3rd party (the worker) to pay dues to the union, this is a violation of freedom of association? That doesn't even really sound like a contract, more like a coercive scheme. Right to work laws do not prevent union members from entering a contract with the union to pay it dues because they think it will benefit them. That's how contracts should work. I think you're just trying to play leftist word games to confuse the issue.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        Yes, the actions of two unrelated third parties can impact your job. For instance, if the company you work at is bought by a private equity firm that fires all of the workers, the sale of the company was still legal - even if it infringes on your "right to work." Likewise, employers can enter into contracts with other third parties that require them to change their contract with other employees. This is basic freedom of contract & association. Right-to-work laws make it so that companies are banned from voluntarily agreeing to such contracts with unions. The contract with the private equity firm remains legal. In my view, the word games are around the phrase "right to work." Freedom of contract and association is quite unambiguous.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  The situations seem to me to be literally identical, which is why I brought it up in the first place -- if merely most of a workplace joins a union, those who do not don't have to pay dues yet reap the benefits of unionization anyway. Stripped of euphemism, the American response is "yes, that's a good thing" whereas the Canadian one is "no, that's a bad thing". It's a completely different justification, sure.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > situations seem to me to be literally identical The situations are similar, but the logic used and conclusions reached are quite separate. Understanding the different paths taken exposes it as far from euphemism.
    - revolvingocelot 5y ago
      I think I do understand the different paths taken. Strip away the false-friend of interpreting jurisprudence as compiler-output of legal code, and its decisions will reflect the pragmatism of the society that created it. The differences in priorities are stark, both here and elsewhere: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs "peace, order, and good government".

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
      There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract.
      - gotoeleven 5y ago
        You're saying because an employer is not able to enter into a contract with a union that requires a 3rd party (the worker) to pay dues to the union, this is a violation of freedom of association? That doesn't even really sound like a contract, more like a coercive scheme. Right to work laws do not prevent union members from entering a contract with the union to pay it dues because they think it will benefit them. That's how contracts should work. I think you're just trying to play leftist word games to confuse the issue.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        Yes, the actions of two unrelated third parties can impact your job. For instance, if the company you work at is bought by a private equity firm that fires all of the workers, the sale of the company was still legal - even if it infringes on your "right to work." Likewise, employers can enter into contracts with other third parties that require them to change their contract with other employees. This is basic freedom of contract & association. Right-to-work laws make it so that companies are banned from voluntarily agreeing to such contracts with unions. The contract with the private equity firm remains legal. In my view, the word games are around the phrase "right to work." Freedom of contract and association is quite unambiguous.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
The situations seem to me to be literally identical, which is why I brought it up in the first place -- if merely most of a workplace joins a union, those who do not don't have to pay dues yet reap the benefits of unionization anyway. Stripped of euphemism, the American response is "yes, that's a good thing" whereas the Canadian one is "no, that's a bad thing". It's a completely different justification, sure.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > situations seem to me to be literally identical The situations are similar, but the logic used and conclusions reached are quite separate. Understanding the different paths taken exposes it as far from euphemism.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    I think I do understand the different paths taken. Strip away the false-friend of interpreting jurisprudence as compiler-output of legal code, and its decisions will reflect the pragmatism of the society that created it. The differences in priorities are stark, both here and elsewhere: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs "peace, order, and good government".