[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

[jamiek88]

You are confusing right to work with at will employment.

[TulliusCicero]

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

Oh, so this is actually pretty common: you're confusing "right to work" with "at will employment". They're not the same thing.

> At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race or religion). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

> 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.

I could cite endless definitions from various sources. Here we go, since apparently you want this:

> The Right To Work principle–the guiding concept of the National Right To Work Committee (NRTWC.org) and the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW.org) –affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–“union shop,” “closed shop,” or “agency shop” –is a contradiction of the Right To Work principle and the fundamental human right of freedom that the principle represents.

> The National Right To Work Committee advocates that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor union.

https://nrtwc.org/facts/right-work-mean/

> Specifically, the right-to-work means that employees are entitled to work in unionized workplaces without actually joining the union or paying regular union dues.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/right-to-work-2071691

> There’s some confusion surrounding "right to work laws"—perhaps due to the somewhat misleading title. While the "right to work" logically sounds like the right to have a job, or to keep a job once you have it, the term is related to membership in a labor union. More than half of U.S. states have enacted so-called "right to work" laws that guarantee no person can be compelled to join a union or pay union dues, as a condition of employment.

https://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/what-are-r...

> I’ve heard that my state has a ‘Right-to-Work’ law. What does that mean?

> In the public-sector union context, right-to-work laws mean that union members do not have to pay union dues to be members of the union.

> In states that have enacted right-to-work laws that apply to private employers, although they vary based on state law, most Right-to-Work laws prohibit labor unions and employers from entering into contracts that only employ unionized workers for the jobs in the contract.

https://www.workplacefairness.org/unions-right-to-work-laws

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

No, it doesn't. This

> Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time.

is not the same thing as

> If you tell all businesses in your state that you must have a union

The former is about a particular business decided to only hire people who will join a union, likely because of market pressure from the union/its members. The latter would be a a state mandating that union membership is required by law. Those are not the same thing. The former may happen because of market forces, the latter is obviously because of government force.