If so, unions and the very opposite of unions are “libertarian concepts” and we’ve reached a point where we’re just talking about how words are meaningless and are entirely off-topic.

This isn't a common term where I'm from, so I am admittedly not intimately familiar with it, but as I understand its meaning, as defined by Wikipedia, it removes some degree of freedom of association. So, no, it is in stark contrast to libertarianism.

“Libertarian” has a specific connotation in the US, certainly when we’re discussing employment within the US.

And they wouldn't be wrong in a vacuum, but what you're forgetting about is contract. In order for association to commence, a union is going to present a contract that spells out what happens in that case, assuming it is of concern to the union members, and the manager will be bound to what has been agreed upon. Libertarianism isn't anarchy.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t actually care about libertarianism because in the US it’s a label self-applied by many kooks (for example, just look up the Libertarian Party nominees for president in… any of our elections)

By US standards, in the US job market, “unions are a libertarian concept” is something that only someone unfamiliar with US labor dynamics and the local meaning of “libertarian” would say. It’s a pointless exercise of “Look how I define this word outside of meaningful context!”

> Requiring a piece of paper that the government supports in order to obtain employment does not seem very libertarian.

Do you see no difference between a contract and a contract required by the government?

Anyway, I’m going to move on. It’s been fun talking about a definition of “libertarian” that has nothing to do with the practical discussion at hand. Kudos to your definition as it applies to the term outside of the US job market.

What government requirement are you talking about? There was no mention of this in previous comments and seems to have nothing to do with the discussion. As before, a union will most likely require a contract in order to enter into an association with an employer, but that's ultimately up to the parties seeking association. Strictly speaking they could associate without one, but disputes become harder to resolve later so it is not the best idea. Indeed, under libertarianism, the government will support the contracts you enter into by helping you enforce them. That is necessary for freedom of association to be a useful concept.

"Right to work" is a union-busting concept: regardless of collective bargaining agreements an individual has the right to their employment, whether or not they pay dues to a union.

Just wanted to correct a common mistake I see made often in these discussions.

Yep! “Right to work” is a way of framing union-busting rhetoric in a way that appeals to people that consider themselves to be libertarian(ish), so I’ve intentionally used that phrasing to try to highlight that both unions and union busting can fit under “libertarian” depending on a person’s intent.

That combination seems to increase (or at least leave unchanged) my freedom of association. (Others who do wish to associate with that union are still free to do so, of course.)

With freedom of association, a union and employer could reach a contractual agreement to require that all employees who enter into an association with the employer must pay into the union, regardless of membership status. Freedom of association allows an employer to reject those terms, of course, but if they do enter into that agreement then that's the terms of engagement that must be adhered to.

The government lording over saying "You can't do that", even when both parties are agreeable to the terms, removes necessary freedom. If the employer wants to associate with you without you needing to pay into a union, they can reject those terms on their own accord. If they do enter into that agreement, they have the freedom to not associate with you if you don't like the terms (as you the freedom to not associate with them).

I, an individual, could equally say "I hate that sokoloff guy and I'll work with you only if you agree to never hire him." and at that point they have to decide if I'm worth hiring under those terms or not. If they want to keep you open as an option then they can say "Nope. Sorry. Best of luck in your future endeavours."

Aside, I tend to get along with most conservatives okay, I'm just far more in favor of more limited govt than they tend to be, and more personal liberty, which tends to collide when they want to make religious views law.

As is union busting.

As the US learned a long time ago, and then eventually forgot, the freedom to organize without employer retribution can only exist with government coercion. And absent that freedom, any attempt to unionize will be (and in the last 30-40 years, has been) crushed by the capital-owning class.

What you describe is most definitely not libertarianism. Probably conservatism.

That's just a No True Scotsman fallacy.

A libertarian would say that employees can choose their employers, and the employers can therefore dictate the term of employment.

One of those terms can be "you are not allowed to freely associate with your fellow employees", and the libertarian would say "if you don't like it, don't work there. #freedom"

The realist recognizes that the employer-employee relationship is one that contains a significant imbalance of power, and that it requires a government to step in and put their finger on the scale in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees. This isn't theory, it's practical reality that we learned from the post-industrial sweatshop era where child labor was the norm and employees had no rights to speak of.

Now, go ahead, feel free to define your personal belief set as "libertarian" if you want. But if you support government regulating the employer-employee relationship, you are not, by any definition I'm aware of, a libertarian.