Howard509 wrote:@4CDPEFCT wrote:Right-to-work is an anti-labor thing pushed by business owners. So if you're pro-labor then you might not want to support that.
Historically, workers fed up with being mistreated by unions have been the driving force behind right to work laws. My final project in labor studies was on the right to work movement. While businesses have contributed financially to right to work organizations, one should not ignore how important workers themselves have been in this. Would an anarchist who believes in freedom of association and freedom from theft support compulsory union dues?
I'm pro-worker. That means I'm anti-scab. Scabs are not "workers" in a strike situation. The workers are striking. Trying to improve their conditions. The scabs are betraying the striking workers. Trying to take those jobs at lower wages. Owners support right-to-work because they support scabs. Because they want to pay lower wages.
You're talking about closed shops. That's different. If a state has closed shop laws and workers don't want it, then I don't want it. But since you're a scholar you must know that closed shop laws are the result of worker struggle. If workers in a closed shop resent union dues, they should agitate their fellow workers. Try to get others to agree. If the majority agrees then they can petition the state. Sad but that's the world we live in. We have to deal with the state to convince them to point their guns in some other direction. But if the majority wants unions, the selfish minority who wants to avoid dues even though it means a loss of benefits for the majority, will have to accept it. If we had worker control, you couldn't avoid majority rule. Worker control doesn't mean each individual worker gets to run the shop his way. It means workers unionize and make collective decisions. And the minority has to accept it if they want to work in that worker controlled shop. I have no sympathy for puffed up individualists who want the power to block collective actions.