> Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to

> Being forced to keep around dead weight because they can't be fired, the potential for an entire company to be shutdown due to a union strike, being forced to only hire individuals who are part of a union, regardless of whether they're the most qualified. For workers, they may be fine with the pay and benefits provided by the company, but get forced to pay union dues and deal with strikes and walkouts because union leadership says so. Right, but these are arguments that may or may not be based in reality. They're also based around a worldview that inherently says, "If you are not very good at your job compared to the most productive and dedicated people, you deserve to be fired." This is in fact a very modern view focused around the idea that efficiency-maximization is a pillar to societal happiness at large. In M. Friedman's case he very literally argued that. In reality, a better way for unions often aggressively deal with people who refuse to perform at all (because many jobs are union-only and if the union kicks you out, you're in trouble). Even teachers unions, the target of every union grudge in the US, do this. The disagreement is what to do with people who simply aren't very good at their jobs relative to peak producers. As we list the various American oppositions to unions, I think it's important to point out how these ideas are shaped and how they conflict with the Union's policies and the existing neoliberal economic establishment.