Well no one is arguing that freedom of association gives you the right to do whatever you want while associated. I can go to the bank with whomever I want, but I can't rob a bank with whomever I want. Forbidding me from being a getaway driver doesn't impinge on my freedom of association.

Freedom of association is the right to join or to leave groups voluntarily. You still need to respect peoples other rights, and follow other applicable laws while associated. There are some laws like child labor laws which do restrict people from being able to voluntarily join or leave a group, but right to work and minimum wage laws are not such cases.

It literally is a restriction on the ways in which you can associate with other groups or individuals.

You can sign an agreement to use only a particular supplier for a product, unless that product is labor and the supplier is a union.

No, it isn't. Look up what right to work laws actually cover. Organizations are still free to enter an agreement to use only a particular supplier of labor. Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union. As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want.

> Right to work laws just make it illegal to enter an agreement where non-union members are forced to pay union agency fees despite not being members of the union.

I guess I'll cite Alabama's right to work amendment for the 4th time today:

> 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.

The screen actor's guild often works as a labor supplier, but they cannot negotiate a contract in Alabama to be the only supplier of labor for a film. I mean I guess you can split hairs and claim that it's the combination of Taft-Hartly and right to work laws that create the situation, but since such a contract is valid in other states, it's really only the right to work law that's relevant.

> As I said previously, freedom of association means you can enter a contract with whomever you want, it does not mean you can enter a contract to do whatever you want.

I think you'll have a hard time describing how the law banning some of these would violate freedom of association, but for others it wouldn't:

    - A contract that requires the employee to be black
    - A contract requiring the employee to hold some certification
    - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a professional organization
    - A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union
    - A contract requiring a salary of $2.00 an hour (minimum wage laws are also often considered a violation of freedom of association)

It's a really easy litmus test: if to do something you are compelled to associate or disassociate with some people but not others, it's a violation of freedom of association. If you can or can't do something no matter who you do it with, it's not a violation of freedom of association.

I suspect there may be some confusion due to how we use language, but it should be noted that the freedom of association is a right that people have to join or to leave groups. Organizations, including companies, are not people and thus don't have this same right, at least not to the same extent, even though the individuals within the organization do.

> A contract that requires the employee to be black

Technically races aren't groups that can be freely associated or disassociated with, so not a freedom of association violation, but obviously still discrimination and thus an invalid contract to enter into. If you broadened it to be a contract that required employees to be members of some traditionally black group, then it would be a violation of freedom of association.

> A contract requiring the employee to hold some certification

So long as anyone is free to get the certification without being compelled to associate or disassociate with anyone, this is fine as it does not restrict who can join and leave groups. If your association is a condition of getting the certificate, it's an obvious violation.

> A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a professional organization

Restricts a person's right to voluntarily join or to leave a group, obvious violation.

> A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union

The same situation as the professional group.

> A contract requiring a salary of $2.00 an hour

So long as you can't pay anyone a salary of $2.00 an hour, has no affect on who people can or can't associate with, there is obviously no violation of freedom of association, regardless of whether people falsely claim it is. If, on the other hand, people from one group can be paid $2.00 an hour but people from another group are restricted from being able to enter that same agreement, then it's an obvious violation.

Now here's an example for you:

Should an employer be permitted to require an employee to register as a member of the employer's chosen political party and contribute some financial minimum to that political party as a condition of employment? How about political group technically unaffiliated with any political party but nevertheless with a distinct ideology? How about a religious group instead of a political one? If your reaction is "employers should not be allowed to compel me to become a member of and pay money to these organizations as a condition of employment" then we're on the same page.

All of your examples would be legal, as far as I know.

We can argue about morality (and whether or not I'd work for such an employer) but yes they are, afaik, all legal things for an employee to mandate.

> > A contract requiring the employee to hold membership in a union

> The same situation as the professional group [a violation]

Then you agree that right to work laws like Alabama's violate freedom of association?

You misread my post. I am saying such a contract is a violation. Right to work laws forbid such contracts.

Do you not see the difference between robbing a bank and a voluntary contractual agreement not to associate with someone?

Well in one case you're entering into an agreement to force a non-consenting third party to give you their money, and in the other you're robbing a bank.

Less facetiously, bank robbing is merely one extreme example of something you're not allowed to enter into an agreement to do. You also can't enter an agreement to provide sexual favors for financial compensation, or employ people full time for less than minimum wage, or require someone to donate an organ to you in exchange for financial compensation. None of these are violations of the freedom of association - there's no restriction on the groups you can freely join or leave, there are just certain things that you can't do regardless of the groups you are or aren't in. In right to work jurisdictions, requiring non-union members to pay union agency fees is just one of those things you are not permitted to do, and thus can't enter an agreement to do.

If your company says, I'm sorry we have to reduce your salary to save money, so take it or leave it, is that "forc[ing] a non-consenting third party to give you their money"?

Nobody is being forced - everybody is voluntarily accepting or refusing contracts.