There has been much debate on the topic of Right-to-Work laws, which protect workers against compulsory unionism.

Whereas they may seem to be granting a sort of liberty to workers not wishing, for whatever reason, to belong to a union, truly the laws have a negative impact on these non-union workers as well as union workers. The existence of multiple labor pools ultimately undermines each, to the benefit of those hiring. When two workers compete for the same position and one is willing to take a lower salary, the employer pays less, the hired worker accepts less and the unhired worker loses out completely. The very concept of unionism is a protection against this sort of wage exploitation, and when there exists someone willing to work for less than the wage set by union agreements, the agreement becomes meaningless. In other words, a union can only work if it is the sole source of labor for a given employer. Its success rests upon an all-or-nothing situation. The non-union worker suffers as well by agreeing to pay a wage lower than the one guaranteed him by the union. Likewise, were he to suffer from some work-related injury or complication, he would lack the benefits with which unions could have provided him to take care of that situation. Proponents of the laws claim that it is neither anti-union nor pro-union, but actions speak louder than words. To claim that the laws merely aim to protect personal liberty is to ignore that they create space for the exploitation of liberty: the right to a dignified wage is undermined when an employer is given the option to hire for lower. Economically speaking, no one can blame the employer for his efficiency. The problem lies in the rhetoric of these laws. Claiming their neutrality while creating anti-union fallout, the proponents of these laws apparently do not factor in consequences when considering the equity of actions. Fundamentally, the Right-to-Work laws benefit only the employer, as they create a divide between the labor party and thus a competition for employment. Competition fosters a lowering of wages, and as long as the divide exists, the competition will keep driving wages down. Apart from these economic considerations, these laws ultimately reduce the worker to the status of a commodity. Workers become just another product hocked competitively in a market, robbing themunion and non-union workers alike of both a fair wage and their dignity.