5 ms·

"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 t

"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.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract No, they are not. Employers are prohibited from altering employment contracts ex post facto. But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Given most employers have wide latitude to alter terms of employment under threat of termination, practically any employer who wants to unionize can trivially do so. But that is a straw man. In practice, a fraction of employees want to unionize and the employer (with some employees) does not. The argument against unionization is that the first group can't force the second groups into a union contract. The argument for is that they can, provided they represent a majority of the employees.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Here's Alabama's Right to Work amendment, which is broadly representative: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(... Key passages are > (c) No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. > (e) An employer may not require a person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay dues, fees, or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization. The employer is not allowed to make union membership or dues a condition of employment, whether due to a union contract or out of their own volition. Interestingly, if you want to look at my other post where I discuss noncompetes vs. Right to Work, you'll find that a number of states, when dealing with noncompetes, consider continued employment "sufficient consideration" for the noncompete. This means that in practice, they're allowed to change your employment contract (w.r.t. a noncompete, and presumably other things), and continuing to employ you is enough to make the contract valid, they don't need to offer you anything additional. Georgia and Florida are two (but there are more) "right to work" states, where the employer is fully within their rights to change your employment contract ex-post-facto, except in regards to union membership.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      Thank you, I was incorrect.
brightball 5y ago
The attorneys I’ve spoken to would disagree with you.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Note, I'm not an attorney, but you should talk to better attorney than the ones you've been talking to, because they're flatly wrong. Here's the right to work laws by state: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... Here's a (pdf warning) list of noncompete laws by state: https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20210627.pdf https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/No... Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws. And further, if you look at the right to work statues (for example Alabama's constitutional amendment: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(..., or Oklahoma's : https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to... as examples), you'll find that they're tailored specifically to prohibit requirements about union dues. They have nothing to do with noncompetes. So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection. I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).
  - brightball 5y ago
    What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job. Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable. Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school. My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements. IANAL

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.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract No, they are not. Employers are prohibited from altering employment contracts ex post facto. But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Given most employers have wide latitude to alter terms of employment under threat of termination, practically any employer who wants to unionize can trivially do so. But that is a straw man. In practice, a fraction of employees want to unionize and the employer (with some employees) does not. The argument against unionization is that the first group can't force the second groups into a union contract. The argument for is that they can, provided they represent a majority of the employees.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Here's Alabama's Right to Work amendment, which is broadly representative: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(... Key passages are > (c) No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. > (e) An employer may not require a person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay dues, fees, or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization. The employer is not allowed to make union membership or dues a condition of employment, whether due to a union contract or out of their own volition. Interestingly, if you want to look at my other post where I discuss noncompetes vs. Right to Work, you'll find that a number of states, when dealing with noncompetes, consider continued employment "sufficient consideration" for the noncompete. This means that in practice, they're allowed to change your employment contract (w.r.t. a noncompete, and presumably other things), and continuing to employ you is enough to make the contract valid, they don't need to offer you anything additional. Georgia and Florida are two (but there are more) "right to work" states, where the employer is fully within their rights to change your employment contract ex-post-facto, except in regards to union membership.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    Thank you, I was incorrect.

brightball 5y ago

The attorneys I’ve spoken to would disagree with you.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Note, I'm not an attorney, but you should talk to better attorney than the ones you've been talking to, because they're flatly wrong. Here's the right to work laws by state: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... Here's a (pdf warning) list of noncompete laws by state: https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Noncompetes-50-State-Survey-Chart-20210627.pdf https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/No... Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws. And further, if you look at the right to work statues (for example Alabama's constitutional amendment: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Right_to_Work,_Amendment_8_(..., or Oklahoma's : https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/oklahoma-law/oklahoma-right-to... as examples), you'll find that they're tailored specifically to prohibit requirements about union dues. They have nothing to do with noncompetes. So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection. I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).
- brightball 5y ago
  What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job. Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable. Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school. My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements. IANAL