The situations seem to me to be literally identical, which is why I brought it up in the first place -- if merely most of a workplace joins a union, those who do not don't have to pay dues yet reap the benefits of unionization anyway. Stripped of euphemism, the American response is "yes, that's a good thing" whereas the Canadian one is "no, that's a bad thing". It's a completely different justification, sure.
The situations are similar, but the logic used and conclusions reached are quite separate. Understanding the different paths taken exposes it as far from euphemism.
I think I do understand the different paths taken. Strip away the false-friend of interpreting jurisprudence as compiler-output of legal code, and its decisions will reflect the pragmatism of the society that created it. The differences in priorities are stark, both here and elsewhere: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" vs "peace, order, and good government".
How so? One of the big perks of right to work states is that non-compete agreements are virtually unenforceable because no agreement can prevent you from earning a living to provide for yourself and your family.
No? In fact, the correlation goes the other way - most states which ban unions security clauses in contracts have legally enforceable non-competes whereas California (for instance) which has no such ban on voluntary contract does not allow for non-competes.
Regardless, "right to work" is more about banning certain union contracts than about providing some "right" to have a job or anything like that.
"Right to work" has absolutely nothing to do with noncompetes.
Edited for precision in response to whimsicalism's reply:
The extent of right to work laws is that union contracts (or I guess any contract) cannot require all employees to pay union fees as part of the union contract. That's it. There's no further restrictions on employers, only this particular restriction on employer-union contracts.
> There is a restriction on employers - they are prohibited from entering into such a contract
No, they are not.
Employers are prohibited from altering employment contracts ex post facto. But employers are free to make offers conditional on joining a union. Given most employers have wide latitude to alter terms of employment under threat of termination, practically any employer who wants to unionize can trivially do so.
But that is a straw man. In practice, a fraction of employees want to unionize and the employer (with some employees) does not. The argument against unionization is that the first group can't force the second groups into a union contract. The argument for is that they can, provided they represent a majority of the employees.
> (c) No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.
> (e) An employer may not require a person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay dues, fees, or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization.
The employer is not allowed to make union membership or dues a condition of employment, whether due to a union contract or out of their own volition.
Interestingly, if you want to look at my other post where I discuss noncompetes vs. Right to Work, you'll find that a number of states, when dealing with noncompetes, consider continued employment "sufficient consideration" for the noncompete. This means that in practice, they're allowed to change your employment contract (w.r.t. a noncompete, and presumably other things), and continuing to employ you is enough to make the contract valid, they don't need to offer you anything additional.
Georgia and Florida are two (but there are more) "right to work" states, where the employer is fully within their rights to change your employment contract ex-post-facto, except in regards to union membership.
You're saying because an employer is not able to enter into a contract with a union that requires a 3rd party (the worker) to pay dues to the union, this is a violation of freedom of association? That doesn't even really sound like a contract, more like a coercive scheme.
Right to work laws do not prevent union members from entering a contract with the union to pay it dues because they think it will benefit them. That's how contracts should work. I think you're just trying to play leftist word games to confuse the issue.
Yes, the actions of two unrelated third parties can impact your job. For instance, if the company you work at is bought by a private equity firm that fires all of the workers, the sale of the company was still legal - even if it infringes on your "right to work." Likewise, employers can enter into contracts with other third parties that require them to change their contract with other employees. This is basic freedom of contract & association. Right-to-work laws make it so that companies are banned from voluntarily agreeing to such contracts with unions. The contract with the private equity firm remains legal.
In my view, the word games are around the phrase "right to work." Freedom of contract and association is quite unambiguous.
Note that only 3 states (California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) ban non-competes (and I'd quibble with this, California and ND afaik ban noncompetes about poaching customers/clients, while Oklahoma allows you ban employees from poaching client, so CA and ND have the strongest noncompete protection, and one is right to work and one isn't). Of these, North and South Dakota are Right-to-Work, and California is not. It's also hard to draw particular conclusions about trends among (I think the only real one I see is that non-right to work states have salary minimums before you can be subject to a noncompete, but so much of the specifics comes down to how courts have interpreted things). What is pretty clear is that there isn't a strong correlation between right to work laws and noncompete laws.
So the text of the statutes are unrelated, and its not even clear that there's a general trend of states with right to work laws having more noncompete protection.
I sort of expect you or your lawyer is extrapolating from one state (probably North Dakota, if I had to guess).
What I was told by 2 different attorneys in SC is that a a non-compete cannot be enforced if it prevents you from earning a living. It cannot force you to move out of the area to obtain a job.
Reasonableness is key to enforcement, meaning a reasonable radius, time and field. Any agreement that prevents you from working in your field is defacto-unenforceable specifically because it’s unreasonable.
Both of these attorneys had been practicing in the state for 20 years at the time of the conversation. One graduated from Georgetown and the other from University of South Carolina’s law school.
My understanding from them was that right to work was interpreted as ensuring you actually have “the right to work” via case law with noncompete agreements.
What your lawyers said sounds believable. It has absolutely nothing to do with "right to work" laws, which are a particular legal concept that have to do with union fee requirements. A quick google search suggests that there was a South Carolina supreme court ruling about noncompetes that addresses "the right of a person to use his talents to earn a living", so I can see what your confusion might stem from, but this is distinct from "right to work", which is a sort of political/legal shorthand for something specific to union contracts.
This appears to be completely separate logic? A balance of interests, in the Canadian case, and an inaliable right, in the U.S. one.