While this can definitely be true, note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against anti-competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor). Therefore, such laws really can be a reduction in regulation rather than a misleading way to describe increased regulation. Indeed, the "right to work" laws usually take the form of restrictions on the sorts of free contracts that employers and groups of employees can enter into.

This is all depressingly similar to the choice of whether to call something a "subsidy", "tax cut", "welfare", or "entitlement". Although those terms can be given distinct objective definitions made with respect to either the status quo or an idealized laissez faire world, in practice the choice of terminology is political.

> note that that "laws that allow union" can also take the form of lifting restrictions against competitive behavior (i.e., restrictions against monopolies on the supply side of labor)

This wording doesn't make sense to me. Can you give an example?

Sorry, that should be "anti-competitive behavior". (Edited.) Thank you.

In many places, there are laws against collusion by market participants, e.g., doctors can't talk with each other about their prices, the CEOs of GM and Toyota can't coordinate on whether to have a sale, and the CEOs of Apple and Google can't agree not to hire each other's employees (heh). These laws often impede the formations of unions, which are collective groups of employees who coordinate on wages, benefits, etc. By repealing anti-competitive laws, or paring them back so they do not apply to unions, this can allow unions to form where they would not. The argument is that allowing monopolies (or at least oligopolies) in the supply of labor is a way to balance the negotiating advantage that businesses have on account of natural monopolies/oligopolies in the demand for labor.