[vonmoltke]

> - Anti-union regulations like "right to work" laws are an anti-market intrusion that weakens the power of labor. Vote against them.

How is forcing me to join a particular union pro-market?

Also, how am I supposed to vote on this or any of the other things you mentioned? I get one vote per legislative body every 2 || 6 years and that one vote has to cover dozens of issues like this that come up in the interim.

[threatofrain]

I always though the right way to do things in a democracy is to talk to your neighbors and reach consensus (campaigning). The purpose of a democracy isn’t so individuals can say “I voted”; voting is merely democracy’s technique for communal action. One could even convince enough people to buy an ad.

It should be obvious given that a person has one vote.

[TulliusCicero]

> How is forcing me to join a particular union pro-market?

A contract stipulating joining a union for a job is no more anti-market than a contract specifying work hours or clothing requirements or how much vacation you get. If that's how the business has decided to run, the free market perspective is that they should be allowed to. It's market forces that can compel a company to agree to such a setup, after all.

However, a regulation saying that this type of contractual obligations is illegal is very obviously an intrusion on the market. Not that I think all intrusions are bad, but I don't see a compelling reason to support this one, given that corporations already tend to have the advantage over workers and this reduces workers' collective leverage.

Agreed that it's hard to vote narrowly on this topic. But no different from any other political subject, really.

[tathougies]

Certainly businesses today are free to mandate union involvement, even in right to work states. However, it is actually anti free market to stipulate thar businesses must do this. There's no way to spin that as anything other than authoritarian

[TulliusCicero]

> Certainly businesses today are free to mandate union involvement, even in right to work states.

But businesses cannot mandate union membership for employees in right to work states. That's what "right to work" means.

> However, it is actually anti free market to stipulate thar businesses must do this.

Not sure what 'this' you're referring to here, could you clarify please?

[tathougies]

> But businesses cannot mandate union membership for employees in right to work states. That's what "right to work" means.

Yes they can.. That is what 'right to work' means. If a company mandates union membership and you do not want to join the union, or decide to leave the union, a company in a right to work state will fire you. This is like a union in a non-right-to-work state, where, if there is a union, and you refuse to join it, you can no longer work at the company. This is how it works for teachers unions too (in California at least) -- if you leave or refuse to pay dues, you are automatically let go.

> Not sure what 'this' you're referring to here, could you clarify please?

If you tell all businesses in your state that you must have a union (or accept a union if your employees vote for one), then that is mandating that the company mandate union membership from their employees by a mechanism other than the company's directors' own will. This is an infringement on their liberty (justified or not).

[TulliusCicero]

> Yes they can.. That is what 'right to work' means.

No, it does not.

> According to the Legal Defense Foundation, right-to-work laws prohibit union security agreements, or agreements between employers and labor unions, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

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

> If you tell all businesses in your state that you must have a union (or accept a union if your employees vote for one)

Nobody was talking about this?

[tathougies]

> No, it does not.

Umm, From your own wikipedia article:

> "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between companies and labor unions

You cited one particular definition by one particular foundation that marginally fit your purposes better. I don't see why I shouldn't do the same.

Right to work usually means the company can fire you for any reason, and you can leave the company for any reason.

While true that a company cannot expect an agreement with a union to be legally enforced, they can certainly decide to mandate membership in a union of their own accord. For example, it is reasonable for a company to specify in its job description that it only wants to hire certified Realtors or members of the ACM or whatever other group the company deems necessary.

> Nobody was talking about this?

This is what 'unionization' means in the context of a 'union shop'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop