Right to Work

Here is the essence of the argument against 'right to work'.  If the majority of workers at a company decide to form a union to represent the all the workers, all the workers must join the union or pay dues to the union if they wish to continue the employment there.  In essence they argue that the private work place should be as democratically binding as the public sphere.  There is a vote for say, the governor of your state.  The vote is 51% for candidate A, and 49% for candidate B.  Candidate A wins, and represents everyone, even the 49% who didn't vote for him/her.  The 49% must pay for that representation in the form of taxes, the governance of candidate A in turn affects everyone  The 49% cannot decide not to pay taxes because they don't support the democratically elected governor.  The constitution provides for this in terms of public elections and compulsory taxation.  Should the same system apply to the work place?  Let us not forget that the constitution also provides for the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -First amendment to the constitution.

The question is, does a law that permits a union to represent you against your will, and require monetary contribution to support that representation under penalty of losing your employment, "abridge your freedom of speech"?

What does freedom of speech mean?  Does it mean the government cannot limit your speech?  Or does it mean the government cannot control your speech, which would include not only limiting your speech, but also requiring you too speak  This is pivotal.

I think most Americans would infer the later, that freedom of speech implies the lack of control over your speech.  After all, would you consider yourself physically free if you the government didn't limit your movements, but at the same time required you to move in certain ways.  For example, you would be free to travel anywhere you want in America, but you have to visit Alaska every 3rd weekend of the month.  Most of us would not consider that to be freedom.  Likewise you cannot have the government directing your speech but not 'limiting' it at the same time.

Next I will attempt to connect speech with the joining and financing of a group that speaks on your behalf.  There, I just did it.  A union is a private entity that speaks collectively for the group on issues related to labor.

Now the last two ideas that need to be connected are the following: is a law that permits a non-government entity (an employer in this case) to fire me for not speaking in the manner in which another non-government entity (union) wants me to, a law that abridges my freedom of speech?  The answer is yes, even if it is not the government specifically sanctioning me.  It doesn't have to be the government in this case, the government is by passage of a law, making it legal for another entity to sanction me.

Another question is, do our constitutional rights apply in the private sphere?  Can a private group (employer) do things to us the government cannot not?  I think the answer is no, we've seen that our rights are not just between us and the government, but between us and society at large.  You can't kill me, stop me from practicing my religion, or fire me for not supporting/financing speech that I don't want to support/finance.

Democracy is and should only be legally binding where the constitution defines it.  A private entity cannot ask the government to enforce a democratic vote in the private sphere.

What if an employer that is predominantly christian allows a vote in which it makes prayer to God mandatory during work hours and the majority of voters agree.  Can the employer fire those employees who don't pray?  No, and a  law supporting that is in violation of the first amendment.  QED.