> "Companies can't stop you from unionizing."

de jure != de facto

Companies are legally prohibited from stopping unionization in the US. But that's not how it works in reality.

Most people work in an 'at-will' states. This means a company can terminate employees at any time. Want to unionize? Have at it.

All an employer needs to do is find is some company policy a person is violating (and trust me, EVERYONE is violates their company's policies from time-to-time, if only because company policies are so verbose and onerous). Your work badge isn't immediately visible? That's a policy violation. Go over your lunch a few minutes? That's a policy violation.

The company fires the unionizer. Now the onous is on the fired employee to prove that they were fired for unionizing. As long as the company doesn't say "I fired you because you were unionizing" (which they would never do), you got a lengthy legal battle on your hands.

Now where do you take your battle? To the NLRB. Now you have to fight against regulatory capture and political appointees who are hostile to the very idea of organized labor. Even if you do win, it will cost untold sums of time and money. It will be years before everything is adjudicated. At that point, what does it matter? The unionizer has been forced to move onto another job in the interim (and hope that the other company doesn't avoid hiring the person because of the labor complaint. And if the potential employer does? Another legal battle that the unionizer has to enter and prove).

So what is your suggestion then

We could start with:

1.) Getting rid of at-will employment 2.) Have a NLRB that is functional and actually protects labor 3.) Lower the legal threshold for proving illicit anti-union activities 4.) Give teeth to laws protect that unionization and uniformly enforce those laws no matter the political party in power 5.) Staff the upper levels of the NLRB with career civil servants, not political appointees

Honestly, I would start with just

a. eliminating workplace one-party consent recording laws in every state

b. public advertising campaign + bounty - record your employer for violation of labor law and get paid a bounty if it is proven in court

two-party* shit

If you terminate at-will employment, then as a service provider I demand that we terminate at-will purchasing.

Companies can't stop you from unionizing, but as Walmart has shown time and again, they will straight up close a store and lay-off every employee there if there are rumours of unionization. They would rather not have a store at all than have a store where the employees are unionized.

Ok... Is there a law somewhere that says that you have a right to have a Walmart?

As an anarchist - why are people not willing to start a co-op?

Short answer: people have limited bandwidth and are forced to pick their battles.

Open your refrigerator, look in your closet. Can you say with certainty that you voted with your wallet by only supporting companies that adhere to your values? Today’s economy has too many interactions to have any confidence about how you vote with your wallet. In this case complexity, not religion, is the opiate of the masses.

Most people’s lives are too complex and busy to “start a co-op”. I know the counter argument is probably “then they obviously don’t care enough” but that’s the pragmatic answer

Well... The answer isn't to force Walmart to provide a service to them.

I don't know if you're strawmanning on purpose or missing the point. I also don't think the answer is "the market will just sort it out...eventually."

Of course there is no law mandating Walmart provide a service. There are, however, laws governing how Walmart must treat employees. Part of their bad reputation is that they run afoul of these laws.

I know the anarchist view is to just decide not to shop there. My point is that in a pragmatic sense, consumers in a globalized economy cannot assess all the information to do so, even if it was freely available. The counterargument is that regulators are the better alternative, which is why the Dept. of Labor has fined them in the past to correct that behavior.

People love to paint this world of voluntary transactions and consensual agreements, but then corporations turn around and push for right-to-work laws which infringe freedom of association and contract by making it illegal for companies to sign security clause contracts with Unions.

Why should a voluntary, consensual signing of a contract be made illegal?

Mandated unions, union bans and laws undermining union contracts - are all infringements on freedom of association.

> Mandated unions

Unions aren't mandated by law anywhere.

Aren’t they mandated in non-right-to-work states in union shops?

No, the company has voluntarily entered into a contract to only hire through the union. They could have not entered into such an agreement but voluntarily chose to do so, and nobody was mandated to join a union, as all job offers are also voluntarily accepted.

I meant from the perspective of the employee. If there’s a contract in place in a non-right-to-work state, you must join the union.

The “just find a different job” position is the trivial case that doesn’t really add much to the discussion

There is no law requiring you join a union in any state. It might be that you have to join a union upon being hired for a job, just like I had to waive my right to sue my employer in a court of law (rather than an arbitrator) in order to accept my current job. I was never mandated to do so, at least not in the way that right-to-work laws mandate that employers can't sign security clauses with unions because they would go to jail or be fined.

I conceded the point that there's no law, but am trying to make the point that from a pragmatic policy perspective it's a trivial point that isn't helpful.

Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union.

"If you don't like the job, don't take it." It's like the argument when discussing child welfare policy where one side says "Don't ask society to help; if you need help, don't have kids". Or in healthcare policy, "Don't want high medical bills? Buy better insurance." While true, it is just a way to elevate above the actual problem without providing a satisfactory policy solution.

> Union security clauses cut both ways; they also require employees to join said union as long as the contract is active. You can't perform the job and be non-union.

I guess I don't see why an employer requiring you to join a union upon joining the job is

a. a mandate (it's not) b. at all different from any number of things that an employer can require you to sign off on to start working at a job.

Union membership is "mandated" in the same way that when you accept a job that requires a 40 hrs/week, you are "mandated" to go to work.

> the actual problem

What is the actual problem? I don't see union security clauses as a problem, it's basically the only way collective bargaining can solve the free-rider problem and generally benefits the worker.

It's not a mandate in the formal governmental legal sense. It is a mandate in the corporate administrative sense.

The problem is many people don't feel they should be forced to pay into an organization that doesn't reflect their values in order to have a job. In some ways, it's similar to the notion that many people don't feel they should pay taxes that go to support something they don't personally support (e.g., abortion, war de jour).

Right-to-work is a way around that in many peoples eyes. In my opinion, it's a policy that takes advantage of people's short-term bias.

Saying "just don't take that job" is like saying "just don't live in that society". It's not wrong; it's just not particularly helpful

Yes, corporations can require you to join a union and maybe that is a "corporate mandate."

I'm unsure of the relevance to "freedom of association" as a negative concept, though. You are still free to associate with who you wish, just as corporations are free to not associate with you if you do not join a union.

If we are going to transform a negative right to not join a union into a positive one, there are many other things I'd like to turn into positive rights first.

>freedom of association" as a negative concept

I don't think it is negative as a concept. I agree that, in theory, it is best to always err on the side of more freedom, not less. In practice, however, it can become negative if you think people don't always act rationally. Which is why I don't know if the right to work is good policy; part of me feels like it takes advantage of humans short-term bias, and leads them to limit their own long-term rational best interests.

It's very much like the social media debate going on right now. Part of me just wants to say it's better to have a completely open marketplace and let the chips fall where they may. But another part of me feels like there is a very real danger this will hijack human psychological shortcomings in a way that is not good long term. Maybe the cliché that "people get the government they deserve" is the closest I can get to reconciling the two.

That's literally not true.

It most certainly should not. In fact, I'd say we shouldn't weaken labour rights before we undo that.

> Companies can't stop you from unionizing

Companies have been fighting unions for a century.

In some cases leading to massacres:

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

You're right; but all too often companies turn to government to pass laws weakening unions, rather than continue to negotiate in good faith.

That's a great argument for reducing government's power.