Right-to-work laws lead to increases in economic inequality by reducing the power of labor unions. (Right-to-work laws are prohibitions on mandatory labor union fees for employees).

Your equation of the legal entity called a company with a natural person who is the worker is dishonest. Companies are not individuals. They are an legal instrument used to concentrate capital, usually the capital of a large number of individual shareholders. Unions in turn are an legal instrument to concentrate labor: the labor of its individual members. Allowing people with capital to organize in a company but not allowing people with labor to organize in a union is obviously unfair because creates an unfair advantage for the people with capital. Which is of course, exactly the point of this law. un-unionized, the workers are easier to exploit. Also, you seem to mention the free market in juxtaposition to goverment intervention. I realize I’m making assumptions about your position, and if I am making the wrong ones I do apologize. However, if you do adhere to the laissez faire school of thought, please realize that both the legal framework that creates things such as ‘companies’, ‘shares’ and ‘limited liability’ to name a few, and also laws forbidding unionisation all constitute government intervention. Much like a company, a free market is not a naturally occuring phenomenon: it is something that needs to be created by the government. The degree to which a market should be regulated is certainly debatable, but positioning government intervention to be in opposition to the “free market” is being in denial as to the origins of that market.

/r/science Thread Parent Link - journals.uchicago.edu