i'd like to comment on the janus case, but this is a situation where the american jurisprudence is so different than the canadian jurisprudence that i can barely understand it.

not only does right to work not exist anywhere in canada, but i am not aware of any politician at any level even thinking about contemplating it, for the reason that it would be instant political suicide. it would be on the absolute fringe of canadian politics. in fact, one of the demands that trudeau made around nafta was that the president abolish right to work at a federal level.

put bluntly, i don't understand what free speech has to do with union dues. not even abstractly. i can normally imagine an argument, and debunk it; but, i don't think that free speech and union dues have anything more to do with each other than bananas and sauerkraut - it's just incoherent on it's face.

so, i'd have to start at the very beginning, and walk very slowly down this path. i'm no doubt going to find many, many things that strike me as basic logical errors at the very beginning of the argument, and that even the american left has taken as precedent.

the way i would analyze this, without looking at the case law, would be that taking a job means signing a contract, and that if union dues are a part of the contract then employment becomes conditional on paying them. you can't sign a contract and then pick the parts you like, and then ask a judge to scratch out the parts you don't like, claiming "free speech". you can breach the contract if you like, but that would mean your employer could fire you for breach of contract.

i'm just not able to imagine where the first amendment enters into this, or at least not on my own.

canada and america are close neighbours and everything, but this is really foreign to me.