4 ms·
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 ru
by 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 agoBusiness 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 9y agoDo 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 9y agoIf 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.