Ironic Freedom and Occupational Choice

Abstract

The inherent contradictions embedded in the notion of a right to work become apparent when we consider these two epigraphs. The first, like everything else in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), states an ideal, a “should.” It has no legal force unless a nation gives it some, independently of the UN. The second, like most dictionary definitions, states a fact, an “is.” Each state has the power to prevent workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. So declares the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, also called the Taft-Hartley Act. This law was passed over a presidential veto, characterized by unions as a slave labor law, and supported by employers.¹ Twenty-four states have right-to-work laws; the most recent was enacted in Michigan in November 2012.² The American right to work is like the freedom of contract affirmed in Lochner v. New York in 1905. It benefits employers at the expense of workers. Therefore it is an ironic freedom situation.³

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

—Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 23.1

Right- to-work law, noun: a state law making it illegal to refuse employment to a person for the sole reason that he or she is not a union member

—Dictionary.com