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.
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.