In response to:

Right-to-Work Laws Shouldn’t Exist, so Why Am I Happy about What Happened in Michigan?

suyts Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 4:43 PM
Dan, you got it backwards. It was government interference that created the totalitarian laws mandating union membership to being with. The right to work law simply removed the prior governmental interference.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 5:42 PM
He didn't get it backwards. I'm pretty sure that you're just restating what Dan already said in the article.

"I’m glad Michigan just enacted a right-to-work law. I know it’s not ideal policy, but my rationale is that most government labor laws (such as the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris–La Guardia Act) tilt the playing field in favor of unions."
suyts Wrote: Dec 15, 2012 6:32 PM
Read what he wrote in it's entirety.

"But then I explore some implications. If you believe in a system based on property rights and private contracts, then right-to-work laws are an unjust form of intervention."

But, the right to work is the default position. Forcing one to be part of a union by implementation of a law is the intrusion into the relationship between employer and employee.

Wooster Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 9:25 AM
"But, the right to work is the default position."

Actually, the right to hire who you please is the default position. Which is what Mitchell is saying - the employer has the right to decide that he wishes to deal with employees solely through the union, and to hire only union members if he wishes.

Of course, he also has the (natural) right to decide not to deal with the union and to refuse to hire union members or union proponents. But the government has trampled on this right.

So "Right to Work" is just a regulatory fix for a problem caused by other regulations.