Corporate profits are were huge last year and everyone but the rich are drowning because wages are going down, white collar wages may have stayed constant but they haven't risen, despite inflation, for decades. While most workers in the nation are pissed off because a small portion of their paycheck says that the money is going to subsidize welfare (the injured, infirm, and small percentage of IDGAF free money people whom most likely have children) they are blind to the fact that a majority their paycheck is stolen from them from above. They never even saw what was stolen from them in the first place. We see the small amount of money come out of our paycheck to support the super poor but we don't see the large amount of money that we should have earned but was taken to support the super rich. Society is looking the wrong way.
Right to work actually is a restriction of contract law; that's why the name is so misleading. It's one of those Right Wing call-something-the-exact-opposite-of-what-it-actually-means type of phrases (think "Clear Skies" or "Healthy Forests" Initiatives from the W days). What right to work laws say is that companies are barred from signing contracts with unions that (a) allow for union dues to be extracted from the company directly, and (b) that make union membership mandatory. Again, it's a law that tells private parties what they CANNOT do with civil contracts.
I have no background in contract law, so please humor my ignorance. Is it not possible for contracts to be void when they impinge on the behavior or rights of non-signatory third parties? If I draw up a contract with my sister obligating my mother to bake us a cake every day, surely that can't be a binding contract? Forgive me if that's an egregious disanalogy.
Hold up, b_b : aren't there myriad restrictions on contract law that we condone? Consider minimum wage, currently set at $7.25/hour (federally). If an employee wishes to contract to work for an employer at $2/hour, Congress interferes and "tells private parties what they CANNOT do with civil contracts." It seems unfair, or inconsistent, to attack right-to-work laws on the grounds that they restrict contracts when you spare all other such restrictions the brunt of your attack. Or perhaps you do in fact deplore minimum wage (or any of the other thousand examples) as a restriction of contract law?
Yes. Of course there are many restrictions on contract law. Many of them are for all of our benefit. One can make an argument about whether RTW is good or bad. But in your original comment, you framed it as granting more freedoms. It does not. That is a fact, not an opinion.
rtw does not inhibit freedom of association for individuals; there is no law that says you have to work in a union shop. it actually inhibits freedom of association for unions and contract for everyone, by prohibiting employers and unions from implementing certain kinds of contracts, even voluntarily, and forcing unions to provide services to nonmembers. http://hubski.com/pub?id=126760 even capitalists agree: http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/16/libertarian-case-again...
Right to work is a misnomer. It actually allows workers to freeload of the negotiations of labor unions without paying dues to the union. It's already a guaranteed right to not have to join a union as a condition of employment unless the company itself forces you to in your contract.
Help me out, I still don't get it. Isn't "freeloading" a systemic feature of the labor market itself—i.e., it would be present regardless of whether right-to-work laws existed or not? If there's a market where employers have offered to pay X to a certain group of workers, presumably the employers are willing to pay X and below for labor. Unsigned workers are looking to maximize their pay. Doesn't microeconomic theory dictate that the unsigned workers and the employers will settle on X as wage? In other words, if you are an unsigned worker and you see others getting paid X, rationally you won't sell your labor for less than X. (And if the unsigned worker is willing to undercut and work for less than X, so be it—it doesn't sound like right-to-work forbids undercutting this way.) I guess my question is: wouldn't market forces (ECON 101 dynamics) prevail in allowing non-union members to benefit from union bargaining, even without right-to-work law? I'm sorry if this question betrays a sore lack of understanding; I'm just trying to get a better handle on how the labor market works.
I can see how right-to-work laws undermine that gravitational "pull". But do you reject the possibility of legitimate reasons for wanting to benefit from union wages but not be part of the union itself? Political reasons, for example: unions may make campaign contributions to candidates the worker does not support, or they may hold positions that worker finds abominable (personally, the anti-immigrant stance and rhetoric of some prominent unions makes me sick). I can see why freeloading is unfair; but it seems equally unfair for a worker to be denied a more liveable wage for political reasons.
'freeloading' is unavoidable in the context of the wider market but there is no reason to prevent employers from signing exclusivity contracts and it's absurd to force unions to provide real services to people that explicitly choose to not support or participate in the union.