3 ms·

If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? S

If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? Sounds like freedom of association with me. You wouldn't complain about a corporation signing an exclusive contract with another corporation (even for supplying labor), why is it a problem when it's a collective of workers imposing that restriction rather than a corporation? Is the free market only for corporations? Does everyone else have to just take what they can get individually?

brightball 3y ago
In most countries, I would imagine any agreement that prevented the hiring of a specific group of people would run afoul of discrimination laws.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  In the United States, that only applies to specifically discriminating against protected classes. It would not apply to my hypothetical, except that "right-to-work" laws in many states specifically prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements. So called right to work laws allow non members to opt out of paying for the representation unions are compelled to provide.
stale2002 3y ago
> If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? > Sounds like freedom of association with me. Hey as long as it goes both ways. It would equally be freedom of association to fire any union employees. Oh wait, that's illegal. So instead of that, a fair compromise is that it should be equally illegal for firing someone either if they join or don't union a union. That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  > That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees. No. Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit making union membership a condition of employment but compel unions to represent non members. So called right to work laws allow non members to withhold payment for the compelled representation.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Gotcha. Unrelated to my point though. So the whole point is that the other person who I was responding to was wrong on the freedom of association angle. If is not freedom of association to only give protections to union members. Instead the fair thing would be for it to be illegal to fire either union members or non union members for their choice of whether they join the union or not. Also, laws that merely make union or non only shops disallowed would be the fair and equal freedom of association way to do things.

brightball 3y ago

In most countries, I would imagine any agreement that prevented the hiring of a specific group of people would run afoul of discrimination laws.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
In the United States, that only applies to specifically discriminating against protected classes. It would not apply to my hypothetical, except that "right-to-work" laws in many states specifically prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit unions and corporations from making exclusive hiring agreements. So called right to work laws allow non members to opt out of paying for the representation unions are compelled to provide.

stale2002 3y ago

> If the market is free, why can't employees decide to group together and negotiate a contract with a company that precludes the hiring of non-union employees? > Sounds like freedom of association with me. Hey as long as it goes both ways. It would equally be freedom of association to fire any union employees. Oh wait, that's illegal. So instead of that, a fair compromise is that it should be equally illegal for firing someone either if they join or don't union a union. That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees.

pseudalopex 3y ago
> That's what right to work laws do. They give equal protections to both union and non union employees. No. Federal law and jurisprudence prohibit making union membership a condition of employment but compel unions to represent non members. So called right to work laws allow non members to withhold payment for the compelled representation.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Gotcha. Unrelated to my point though. So the whole point is that the other person who I was responding to was wrong on the freedom of association angle. If is not freedom of association to only give protections to union members. Instead the fair thing would be for it to be illegal to fire either union members or non union members for their choice of whether they join the union or not. Also, laws that merely make union or non only shops disallowed would be the fair and equal freedom of association way to do things.