How compulsory unionization makes us more free

This is a brief summary essay from Mark R. Reiff, the author of the newly released book of political philosophy, In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization.

From the essay:

The more successful anti-union argument is that compulsory unionisation is a violation or workers’ rights, just as a prohibition on voluntary unionisation would be. It is a violation, they claim, because the right to liberty gives workers the option to refuse to join a union if they don’t want to. Employers then lobby workers to vote against unionisation or to refuse to join even if unionisation passes.

But the claim that liberty protects workers against compulsory unionisation is perverse. Workers shouldn’t have to go through what amounts to a political campaign and vote to unionise before an employer is required to recognise the union and deal with it. Unions are a basic institution of a just society. And as a basic institution, their existence isn’t optional. They are subject to regulation, like any other basic institution, but every firm’s employees must have a union, like every community must have a government if it’s going to be in a position to be just. Except perhaps for very small businesses, firms must accordingly be unionised, no matter whether the firm’s employees have affirmatively voted to unionise or not.