7 ms·

Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? In the context of the United States, right-to-work employers are under less government scrutiny

Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? In the context of the United States, right-to-work employers are under less government scrutiny as they don’t have to interact with e.g. the NLRB. If so, unions and the very opposite of unions are “libertarian concepts” and we’ve reached a point where we’re just talking about how words are meaningless and are entirely off-topic.

randomdata 4y ago
> Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.
- braingenious 4y ago
  A lot of libertarian managers in the US would disagree with that. From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. “Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      I’m kind of confused here. Contracts are enforced by the government, right? Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections) By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”
      - randomdata 4y ago
        Color me confused as well. In what way are contracts not libertarian? Freedom of association really doesn't stand up to have any meaning if you are unable to define what the relationship entails. Libertarian doesn't mean no government, if that is what you are suggesting; not in the USA, not anywhere.
        braingenious 4y ago
        To quote myself: > Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government? Anyway, I’m going to move on. It’s been fun talking about a definition of “libertarian” that has nothing to do with the practical discussion at hand. Kudos to your definition as it applies to the term outside of the US job market.
        randomdata 4y ago
        > Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government? What government requirement are you talking about? There was no mention of this in previous comments and seems to have nothing to do with the discussion. As before, a union will most likely require a contract in order to enter into an association with an employer, but that's ultimately up to the parties seeking association. Strictly speaking they could associate without one, but disputes become harder to resolve later so it is not the best idea. Indeed, under libertarianism, the government will support the contracts you enter into by helping you enforce them. That is necessary for freedom of association to be a useful concept.
  - gingerrr 4y ago
    Not to derail, but I think you're conflating "right to work" with "at-will employment" here - you're describing at-will, where the employee/employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time for any reason. "Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union. Just wanted to correct a common mistake I see made often in these discussions.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      > "Right to work" is a union-busting concept… Yep! “Right to work” is a way of framing union-busting rhetoric in a way that appeals to people that consider themselves to be libertarian(ish), so I’ve intentionally used that phrasing to try to highlight that both unions and union busting can fit under “libertarian” depending on a person’s intent.
      - gingerrr 4y ago
        Got it! Ignore my "correction" then, makes sense and definitely paints the point well.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  In what way does it reduce freedom of association? In a right-to-work state, I am free to associate with employer X without a corresponding requirement to fund a union that I might not care to associate with. That combination seems to increase (or at least leave unchanged) my freedom of association. (Others who do wish to associate with that union are still free to do so, of course.)
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > I am free to associate with employer X without a corresponding requirement to fund a union that I might not care to associate with. With freedom of association, a union and employer could reach a contractual agreement to require that all employees who enter into an association with the employer must pay into the union, regardless of membership status. Freedom of association allows an employer to reject those terms, of course, but if they do enter into that agreement then that's the terms of engagement that must be adhered to. The government lording over saying "You can't do that", even when both parties are agreeable to the terms, removes necessary freedom. If the employer wants to associate with you without you needing to pay into a union, they can reject those terms on their own accord. If they do enter into that agreement, they have the freedom to not associate with you if you don't like the terms (as you the freedom to not associate with them).
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      It's a fair (if a bit unusual) interpretation to elevate the rights of association of the employer and union over the rights of association of natural persons.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        There is no change in the rights granted. Each party has full freedom to associate with whom they choose and only enter into only the agreements they feel are worthwhile. I, an individual, could equally say "I hate that sokoloff guy and I'll work with you only if you agree to never hire him." and at that point they have to decide if I'm worth hiring under those terms or not. If they want to keep you open as an option then they can say "Nope. Sorry. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

randomdata 4y ago

> Would you say that right-to-work is also a libertarian concept? This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.

braingenious 4y ago
A lot of libertarian managers in the US would disagree with that. From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. “Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > From a manager’s perspective the ability to fire anyone at any time is them exercising freedom of association. And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    I’m kind of confused here. Contracts are enforced by the government, right? Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections) By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”
    - randomdata 4y ago
      Color me confused as well. In what way are contracts not libertarian? Freedom of association really doesn't stand up to have any meaning if you are unable to define what the relationship entails. Libertarian doesn't mean no government, if that is what you are suggesting; not in the USA, not anywhere.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        To quote myself: > Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian. Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government? Anyway, I’m going to move on. It’s been fun talking about a definition of “libertarian” that has nothing to do with the practical discussion at hand. Kudos to your definition as it applies to the term outside of the US job market.
        randomdata 4y ago
        > Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government? What government requirement are you talking about? There was no mention of this in previous comments and seems to have nothing to do with the discussion. As before, a union will most likely require a contract in order to enter into an association with an employer, but that's ultimately up to the parties seeking association. Strictly speaking they could associate without one, but disputes become harder to resolve later so it is not the best idea. Indeed, under libertarianism, the government will support the contracts you enter into by helping you enforce them. That is necessary for freedom of association to be a useful concept.
- gingerrr 4y ago
  Not to derail, but I think you're conflating "right to work" with "at-will employment" here - you're describing at-will, where the employee/employer relationship can be severed by either party at any time for any reason. "Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union. Just wanted to correct a common mistake I see made often in these discussions.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    > "Right to work" is a union-busting concept… Yep! “Right to work” is a way of framing union-busting rhetoric in a way that appeals to people that consider themselves to be libertarian(ish), so I’ve intentionally used that phrasing to try to highlight that both unions and union busting can fit under “libertarian” depending on a person’s intent.
    - gingerrr 4y ago
      Got it! Ignore my "correction" then, makes sense and definitely paints the point well.
sokoloff 4y ago
In what way does it reduce freedom of association? In a right-to-work state, I am free to associate with employer X without a corresponding requirement to fund a union that I might not care to associate with. That combination seems to increase (or at least leave unchanged) my freedom of association. (Others who do wish to associate with that union are still free to do so, of course.)
- randomdata 4y ago
  > I am free to associate with employer X without a corresponding requirement to fund a union that I might not care to associate with. With freedom of association, a union and employer could reach a contractual agreement to require that all employees who enter into an association with the employer must pay into the union, regardless of membership status. Freedom of association allows an employer to reject those terms, of course, but if they do enter into that agreement then that's the terms of engagement that must be adhered to. The government lording over saying "You can't do that", even when both parties are agreeable to the terms, removes necessary freedom. If the employer wants to associate with you without you needing to pay into a union, they can reject those terms on their own accord. If they do enter into that agreement, they have the freedom to not associate with you if you don't like the terms (as you the freedom to not associate with them).
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    It's a fair (if a bit unusual) interpretation to elevate the rights of association of the employer and union over the rights of association of natural persons.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      There is no change in the rights granted. Each party has full freedom to associate with whom they choose and only enter into only the agreements they feel are worthwhile. I, an individual, could equally say "I hate that sokoloff guy and I'll work with you only if you agree to never hire him." and at that point they have to decide if I'm worth hiring under those terms or not. If they want to keep you open as an option then they can say "Nope. Sorry. Best of luck in your future endeavours."