This implies that the presence of a choice equates to the absence of coercion.
Let's say I offer you the choice to jump off a cliff or be shot. You have the ability to choose but that obviously means very little from a practical standpoint and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no coercion.
Just as in the analogy, the company is forcing me to do something. It's forcing me to choose between two options, neither one acceptable.
In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into. The difference is that the man with the gun is threatening to do things to the other person which would deprive him of the maximum amount of equal liberty that every human being is entitled to. In other words, he is threatening to do things to him which he has no RIGHT to do. Namely, he is threatening the other person's right to continue living. By contrast, when an employer or employee decides to terminate a voluntary, consensual relationship, it does not deprive anyone of one shred of liberty... because rightful liberty does not include the "right" to force someone to continue a relationship that he does not consent to. This itself would deprive the other party of HIS rightful liberty. When a person ends a voluntary relationship with another person, the only thing the other person is "deprived" of is the ability to remain in the relationship... which at that point could not be maintained without the consenting party initiating force against the non-consenting party.
The way you see things, no human interaction could ever be considered voluntary. I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with. Maybe we need a law to force her to continue the relationship, to protect your "rights." To make it more like the "large employer" scenario you guys keep bringing up, we could say that she is a lot more attractive than you, and has a lot more other prospects. She is like the employer, with more barganining power. Is this any excuse to deny her right to withdraw consent from the relationship if she no longer wishes to continue it?
And don't tell me that an employment relationship is totally different than a sexual relationship. When it comes down to it, all voluntary human interaciton is the same, and every one of us has a right to engage in all of its forms as long as the other party freely gives their consent as well. Whether it is a employment relationship, a sexual relationship, a friendship, or a sale of goods/services, it doesn't matter. No one has any right to force someone to continue a relationship that he no longer wants to be in.
Mere withholding of consent can never be considered force... not if we are to have a society based on voluntary human interaction. It is one of the rights that all human beings have at all times, no matter what.
By contrast, using a threat of actual force to induce someone to continue to associate with another person, when he has no desire to do so, is basically the definition of FORCE. Whether this is making someone jump of a cliff at gunpoint, or forcing someone to have sex with you, or the government forcing someone them to remain in an employment relationship with you under conditions that they do not consent to, it is all a violation of the rightful liberty of man and should be resisted by every liberty-loving individual.
First of all, this isn't about freely bargaining vs. bargaining with legal restrictions for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the former. Nobody gets to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. There are always legal restrictions imposed unless we restrict our focus to totally inconsequential matters.
This is the same argument that others keep bringing up in this thread, which is basically that "the government says it, so it must be right." This is only true if our rights exist at the whim of governments, rather than being natural inalienable and God-given rights. The argument between these philosophies was had in this country back in 1775-1783, but if you want to re-hash it again in this thread, I am perfectly willing.
The fact that the government currently violates our right to free association, and the fact that free human association has almost always been forcibly interfered with throughout human history does not mean that any of this is right, or that it is the way things should be.
Although you agree that this is a rights issue you are apparently unable to widen your focus to see anything other than the employer's standpoint.
On the contrary! I have been arguing for EQUAL rights for ALL people, no matter which side of a transaction they are on or what their "station in life" is. I believe an employee has just as much right to terminate an employment relationship as an employer, and has the very same right to set the conditions upon which he is willing to contract with others.
It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.
I believe that a lot of the support for laws like this comes from the same class warfare tendencies that make people support the forceful redistribution of wealth. Many in this thread have made comments that basically equate to "stick it to the man!" Kind of like the New Dealers during the great depression who were rallying to "soak the rich!"
I also believe that a lot of the supporters of this type of law have an antiquated feudal concept of the employment relationship, which is a relic of our British heritage. They see their boss as a lord or master, and themselves as a servant. They believe that they are employed purely at the mercy of their boss. It is hard for them to grasp the concept of co-equal parties with equal rights forming a voluntary relationship for their mutual benefit. They see laws like this as helping the helpless little servants from being treated "unfairly" by their masters.
The problem with supporters of gun rights is that a lot of them are very single-issue, and are not supporters of liberty as a whole. They will support anything that "scores one" for the gun rights movement and gives a black eye to who they percieve to be anti-gun.
The bottom line is that there already are and certainly should be limits on what an employer can force an employee to do as a condition of continued employment. This is just one more.
You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right? Hell, while we're throwing the right to contract and the right to freedom of association out the window, why not throw out freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well? If the government does it, it can't be wrong, so why not?