3 ms·

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

by 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)
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Do you not see the difference between robbing a bank and a voluntary contractual agreement not to associate with someone?
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Well in one case you're entering into an agreement to force a non-consenting third party to give you their money, and in the other you're robbing a bank. Less facetiously, bank robbing is merely one extreme example of something you're not allowed to enter into an agreement to do. You also can't enter an agreement to provide sexual favors for financial compensation, or employ people full time for less than minimum wage, or require someone to donate an organ to you in exchange for financial compensation. None of these are violations of the freedom of association - there's no restriction on the groups you can freely join or leave, there are just certain things that you can't do regardless of the groups you are or aren't in. In right to work jurisdictions, requiring non-union members to pay union agency fees is just one of those things you are not permitted to do, and thus can't enter an agreement to do.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        If your company says, I'm sorry we have to reduce your salary to save money, so take it or leave it, is that "forc[ing] a non-consenting third party to give you their money"? Nobody is being forced - everybody is voluntarily accepting or refusing contracts.

by jjk166 5y ago

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)
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Do you not see the difference between robbing a bank and a voluntary contractual agreement not to associate with someone?
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Well in one case you're entering into an agreement to force a non-consenting third party to give you their money, and in the other you're robbing a bank. Less facetiously, bank robbing is merely one extreme example of something you're not allowed to enter into an agreement to do. You also can't enter an agreement to provide sexual favors for financial compensation, or employ people full time for less than minimum wage, or require someone to donate an organ to you in exchange for financial compensation. None of these are violations of the freedom of association - there's no restriction on the groups you can freely join or leave, there are just certain things that you can't do regardless of the groups you are or aren't in. In right to work jurisdictions, requiring non-union members to pay union agency fees is just one of those things you are not permitted to do, and thus can't enter an agreement to do.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      If your company says, I'm sorry we have to reduce your salary to save money, so take it or leave it, is that "forc[ing] a non-consenting third party to give you their money"? Nobody is being forced - everybody is voluntarily accepting or refusing contracts.