[lstyls]

> most states are aren’t “right-to-work” meaning you can quit at a moment’s notice, but it’s common courtesy to give 2 weeks notice

The term "right to work" has nothing to do with employment status. It's political branding for laws that forbid mandatory union membership. It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force.

I think you're confusing it with "at will" employment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[humanrebar]

> It's a pretty effective union busting tool and has contributed to the decline of organized labor as a political force.

I think it's fair to say teachers have the right to be teachers without joining a teachers' union. I don't think enforcing that right "contributes to the decline" of unions. Organizational models should be able to handle that sort of freedom to choose.

To me, the question is why unions don't innovate in their organizational models and policies so that giving employees freedom to choose is moot?

[fjsolwmv]

Same reason that people who live in the US don't have the freedom to choose whether they want to be governed by the US government. Social contract

[humanrebar]

But on a more concrete level, union fees go to campaigning, lobbying, and donations to candidates the union members may not support.

I don't think it's part of an American social contract that you would be forced to tangibly support candidates who have (by some accounts) immoral positions on abortion or immigration (to pick to polarizing issues).