> 2) The union has a legal obligation to fully represent each one of the employees in department X fairly and equally. Sure, but what do you see as the differe

> 2) The union has a legal obligation to fully represent each one of the employees in department X fairly and equally. Sure, but what do you see as the difference in representation from person to person? Something that's beneficial to one worker (better conditions, more pay, etc) is almost always beneficial to their coworkers, too. Isn't negotiating a contract to the benefit of any of the workers pretty much automatically to the benefit of all of them? > Employees who feel they are not being represented can sue their union for inadequate representation This sounds like one of those facts which is technically true but practically useless. I googled it and found a number of answers that all say essentially: the courts recognize that unions have finite resources, and grant them leeway in choosing what to pursue. You probably will never win a case against your union, even for just being bad at what they do, unless they specifically discriminated against you on the basis of a protected class. I've never heard of it happening, and I can't find any cases on the internet, either. > This system has its upsides: German unions never have to negotiate on behalf of non-members. What does this mean in practice? "We'd like better working conditions, but only for the names on this list"?