[businessprofessor]

Outlawing unions may be a violation of free assembly. Unions exist through legislation. If employers were not forced to bargain with unions, unions would not exist in most cases. The simplest remedy is just right to work even if companies are forced to bargain. Right to work provides choice to workers and a path for an employer to ignore a union’s outrageous demands.

[PapaBear3625]

Outlawing unions may be a violation of free assembly. Unions exist through legislation. If employers were not forced to bargain with unions, unions would not exist in most cases. The simplest remedy is just right to work even if companies are forced to bargain. Right to work provides choice to workers and a path for an employer to ignore a union’s outrageous demands.

What would be needed is "right to work" plus enforcement of the law against union thugs when they commit acts of violence or vandalism against the companies and replacement workers

[jveritas]

The “free assembly” is very debatable as most current unions are organized to blackmail the businesses that they work for. Many states allow the formation of unions but some state do not allow them so I am not sure if the “free assembly” argument in this case can hold any power.

[Myrddin]

Freedom of association is fine. It is wrong for the government to protect unions by requiring workers to join a union. That is NOT freedom of association. That is coercion by government fiat. If the union is really that appealing to the workers, they should be free to join it or not. The private business should have the right to negotiate the best deal for itself. If that deal is with the union fine. If it is better with individual, non-union employees, then they should have that option as well. Keep the government's nose out of the process.

[mamelukesabre]

There are ways around that too. Cities pass laws saying you have to have a license to do a certain job. Then the licensing board becomes union thugs. They decide who gets a license and who doesn’t.