5 ms·

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 l

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!).

jjk166 5y ago
Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired. Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want. All it means is that non-union members can't be forced to pay union fees as part of their employment contract. An organization can still restrict its association to only union members, but if it chooses to associate with non-union members, it can't penalize them by charging them a fee to remain non-union members.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired. I don't think I said they did. > Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want. But are limited in the ways they can associate: certain contract terms are prohibited. Again, whether or not this is good is a distinct question. Minimum wage laws prohibit certain contract terms that I consider predatory (but in a sense the government is simply collectively bargaining on behalf of all workers in setting a minimum wage). Conversely, a government setting a maximum wage would probably be considered problematic. But all three, a minimum wage, a maximum wage, and "right to work" laws, limit how you can associate.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Well no one is arguing that freedom of association gives you the right to do whatever you want while associated. I can go to the bank with whomever I want, but I can't rob a bank with whomever I want. Forbidding me from being a getaway driver doesn't impinge on my freedom of association. Freedom of association is the right to join or to leave groups voluntarily. You still need to respect peoples other rights, and follow other applicable laws while associated. There are some laws like child labor laws which do restrict people from being able to voluntarily join or leave a group, but right to work and minimum wage laws are not such cases.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      It literally is a restriction on the ways in which you can associate with other groups or individuals. You can sign an agreement to use only a particular supplier for a product, unless that product is labor and the supplier is a union.
      - jjk166 5y ago
        No, it isn't. Look up what right to work laws actually cover. Organizations are still free to enter an agreement to use only a particular supplier of labor. Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union. As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union. I guess I'll cite Alabama's right to work amendment for the 4th time today: > 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. The screen actor's guild often works as a labor supplier, but they cannot negotiate a contract in Alabama to be the only supplier of labor for a film. I mean I guess you can split hairs and claim that it's the combination of Taft-Hartly and right to work laws that create the situation, but since such a contract is valid in other states, it's really only the right to work law that's relevant. > As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want. I think you'll have a hard time describing how the law banning some of these would violate freedom of association, but for others it wouldn't: - A contract that requires the employee to be black - A contract requiring the employee to hold some certification - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a professional organization - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union - A contract requiring a salary of $2.00 an hour (minimum wage laws are also often considered a violation of freedom of association)

jjk166 5y ago

Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired. Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want. All it means is that non-union members can't be forced to pay union fees as part of their employment contract. An organization can still restrict its association to only union members, but if it chooses to associate with non-union members, it can't penalize them by charging them a fee to remain non-union members.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> Right to work laws in no way limit who can or can not be hired. I don't think I said they did. > Everyone is still free to associate, or not associate, with whomever they want. But are limited in the ways they can associate: certain contract terms are prohibited. Again, whether or not this is good is a distinct question. Minimum wage laws prohibit certain contract terms that I consider predatory (but in a sense the government is simply collectively bargaining on behalf of all workers in setting a minimum wage). Conversely, a government setting a maximum wage would probably be considered problematic. But all three, a minimum wage, a maximum wage, and "right to work" laws, limit how you can associate.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Well no one is arguing that freedom of association gives you the right to do whatever you want while associated. I can go to the bank with whomever I want, but I can't rob a bank with whomever I want. Forbidding me from being a getaway driver doesn't impinge on my freedom of association. Freedom of association is the right to join or to leave groups voluntarily. You still need to respect peoples other rights, and follow other applicable laws while associated. There are some laws like child labor laws which do restrict people from being able to voluntarily join or leave a group, but right to work and minimum wage laws are not such cases.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    It literally is a restriction on the ways in which you can associate with other groups or individuals. You can sign an agreement to use only a particular supplier for a product, unless that product is labor and the supplier is a union.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      No, it isn't. Look up what right to work laws actually cover. Organizations are still free to enter an agreement to use only a particular supplier of labor. Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union. As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union. I guess I'll cite Alabama's right to work amendment for the 4th time today: > 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. The screen actor's guild often works as a labor supplier, but they cannot negotiate a contract in Alabama to be the only supplier of labor for a film. I mean I guess you can split hairs and claim that it's the combination of Taft-Hartly and right to work laws that create the situation, but since such a contract is valid in other states, it's really only the right to work law that's relevant. > As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want. I think you'll have a hard time describing how the law banning some of these would violate freedom of association, but for others it wouldn't: - A contract that requires the employee to be black - A contract requiring the employee to hold some certification - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a professional organization - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union - A contract requiring a salary of $2.00 an hour (minimum wage laws are also often considered a violation of freedom of association)