4 ms·

I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point an

by Eridrus 10y ago

I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point and the union is free to diverge from your interests.

LesZedCB 10y ago
well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....
- neuland 10y ago
  IMO this is the crux of the argument between anti-union workers and pro-union workers. To benefit all parties, the most obvious solution is to get rid of the rule that requires unions to cover non-union workers. Then everyone can associate the way they and if anti-union workers are worse off for it, they can either stand on their principles and make less or join the union and make more. But, unions don't seem to want that, because they benefit greatly both from the power dynamic in closed shops and from this very argument (that anti-union workers are free-riders at best or scabs out for themselves at worst).
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    Business interests don't seem to want that either. Members of a certain party keep introducing legislation to take the free-rider problem nationwide instead of adopting your principled suggestion.
    - neuland 10y ago
      Do you know what the reasoning would be for business interests to oppose allowing mixed (union/non-union) workplaces? Off the top of my head, I could see entrenched businesses that already have union workers (ie. big auto manufacturers, ISP's, etc) want to make sure their competitors have to work with the union, too.
      - pseudalopex 10y ago
        If I run a non-unionized workplace, I want workers to be afraid of being stuck with a union that doesn't represent their interests. Letting workers opt out of union representation limits that risk. If I run a workplace where the union has marginal support, I might see an underfunded, unpopular union as more vulnerable than a smaller union with stronger support. If the union has strong support, I'm probably better off with it representing everyone. A union that represents 80% of my workers would have almost as much leverage but less flexibility to make concessions.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  No, the point is that many union shops have a contract with the company that says any new employee must join the union.
Frondo 10y ago
In the U.S., you never need to join a union, even at a union shop, anywhere. The issue is that, in a union shop--and this varies state by state--you might have to pay union dues whether or not you're a member. That issue of being compelled to pay union dues whether or not you're a member is the crux of the "right to work" debate (a bullshit term, because everyone always has the right to work, these laws are just about weakening unions and setting laws in favor of the owners). But being compelled to join a union? In the U.S.? Nope, never.
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  To expand on that, federal law requires a union to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. In exchange, they're allowed to collect partial dues from non-members. In "right to work" states, the union still has to represent non-members, but they don't have to pay.

by Eridrus 10y ago

LesZedCB 10y ago

well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....

neuland 10y ago
IMO this is the crux of the argument between anti-union workers and pro-union workers. To benefit all parties, the most obvious solution is to get rid of the rule that requires unions to cover non-union workers. Then everyone can associate the way they and if anti-union workers are worse off for it, they can either stand on their principles and make less or join the union and make more. But, unions don't seem to want that, because they benefit greatly both from the power dynamic in closed shops and from this very argument (that anti-union workers are free-riders at best or scabs out for themselves at worst).
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  Business interests don't seem to want that either. Members of a certain party keep introducing legislation to take the free-rider problem nationwide instead of adopting your principled suggestion.
  - neuland 10y ago
    Do you know what the reasoning would be for business interests to oppose allowing mixed (union/non-union) workplaces? Off the top of my head, I could see entrenched businesses that already have union workers (ie. big auto manufacturers, ISP's, etc) want to make sure their competitors have to work with the union, too.
    - pseudalopex 10y ago
      If I run a non-unionized workplace, I want workers to be afraid of being stuck with a union that doesn't represent their interests. Letting workers opt out of union representation limits that risk. If I run a workplace where the union has marginal support, I might see an underfunded, unpopular union as more vulnerable than a smaller union with stronger support. If the union has strong support, I'm probably better off with it representing everyone. A union that represents 80% of my workers would have almost as much leverage but less flexibility to make concessions.
smallnamespace 10y ago
No, the point is that many union shops have a contract with the company that says any new employee must join the union.

Frondo 10y ago

In the U.S., you never need to join a union, even at a union shop, anywhere. The issue is that, in a union shop--and this varies state by state--you might have to pay union dues whether or not you're a member. That issue of being compelled to pay union dues whether or not you're a member is the crux of the "right to work" debate (a bullshit term, because everyone always has the right to work, these laws are just about weakening unions and setting laws in favor of the owners). But being compelled to join a union? In the U.S.? Nope, never.

pseudalopex 10y ago
To expand on that, federal law requires a union to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. In exchange, they're allowed to collect partial dues from non-members. In "right to work" states, the union still has to represent non-members, but they don't have to pay.