Why do I have to do due diligence and drive change for something I don't want or need in the first place?
I put up with it because it's a 'take it or leave' it condition of getting a paycheck.
Organized labor has introduced customs that you benefit from and take for granted.
All you have to do is look at the difference in quality of life that came before and after the changes we obtained from organized labor in the 1800s/early 1900s.
Most people don't appreciate the extreme asymmetry between those who control capital and those who create the wealth of nations (26 individuals have the same worth as 3.5 Billion individuals)
In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.
My wife is from the UK, I've looked into things there. I make 4 times what I would make in the UK, and that's before the additional taxes I'd pay (and before you ask the additional taxes for the NHS exceeds my spend for health insurance + copays). Sure they get about two weeks more vacation but I wouldn't trade that for 3/4ths of my salary why should I be forced to do so?
Also the UK is not a good example of a place with strong labor. It's much closer to the US. Look at quality of life in places like Germany or Austria.
A simple payscale.com comparison (not vouching for the data, it's just the first hit on google)
Average Software Engineer Salary
UK: £34,981 ($44908 USD) [0]
US: $83,483 [1]
The median salary is roughly double, if you are an outlier that number grows to about 4 fold.
[0]https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Software_Engineer/S... [1]https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/S...
I posit that if the market of the labor you're offering isn't very advantageous to you anymore, and if you're being mistreated by an employer when you're in a position where you can't use your financial means or time to fight back for whatever reasons, you will feel the need of someone else to fight for you because you can't just find an employer that will shower you with money two blocks away. And when I say "mistreated" I mean that everything you are entitled to in your contract is not something you can count on, so no severance, and when I say you're not in a financial position to fight back I mean that you don't have the means or the time to sue, even if you're 100% in the clear legally.
If you believe that will never happen, you're likely correct. I don't think my apartment will be on fire without me noticing too, it's a very low risk of that ever happening in my life, but I still want a smoke detector. I just can't take the risk. Same thing with union membership for me, I can't take the risk of being treated the same way my ex-wife was treated when she was simultaneously struggling with depression (and wouldn't have gotten anything she was entitled to from her employer during her medical leave if someone else hadn't fought for her).
That is incorrect, in the US if my workplace decides to unionize I'm forced to pay union dues. I am fully in my right to criticize unions as they can be foisted upon me without my consent.
However, unions here in the US have done untold amounts of lobbying to government and employers to make them mandatory. The argument is usually that, "if membership is voluntary, some people will forgo membership but still reap the benefits of our negotiations, therefore you must force them to join us." Considering that many politicians (particularly in rust belt states) win office by getting big union endorsements, this tactic works very well.
I would be likely to join a union that was voluntary, because if the leadership started doing things I disagreed with, I could quit the union, or join a competing union that was more in line with my beliefs.
Both entrenched unions and corporate interests support the status quo. It strengthens strong unions but makes organizing new unions harder.
As I've explained above, this is true but misleading. They are required to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, but they can define the bargaining unit however they wish, including defining the bargaining unit to encompass only workers who have decided to sign up for the union and pay their dues. The only thing they cannot do is create contracts which apply to non-members and refuse to represent those non-members.
> Mandatory membership is illegal.
This is a common misconception. Closed shops are illegal, but it is legal for an employer to require (pursuant to a union contract) that employees join the union within 30 days or risk being fired (excluding railway, airline, and government employees).
Unions can also expel members from their union, and if they have an exclusive contract with the employer, this may result in the employer being forced to fire the employee in question, depending on the reason for which they are expelled.
This statement is misleading to the point of it being a lie.
It is perfectly legal for a union to define the "bargaining unit" as "people who join this origanization".
Unions don't want to do this though. They instead want to force everyone to join.
Members only unions are explicitly in the National Labor Relations Act.
Well, obviously. They can make whatever negotiations that they want for their own benefits.
What they cannot do is negotiate for other people who have chosen to not join the union, which is what the word "exclusive" implies.
So yes, they can negotiate. For themselves. Not for other people. Which makes sense, why the heck should they have the right to negotiate a contract for people that they don't represent?
The can absolutely negotiate for themselves, though. Just like you and I can negotiate a contract for ourselves.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/i...
This would require that the AFL-CIO, UAW, Teamsters, SEIU, etc. all reverse decades of their own established policy not to pursue members-only unions.
It would also require legislation that makes it possible for a worker to dissociate from a union that they don't want to represent them. There is immense opposition by labor organizers against anything remotely resembling this shape of law, so it is unlikely to happen.
Yes, but you want to take on both organized labor (AFL-CIO and the like) and anti-labor forces at the same time... well, good luck to you.
I mean that earnestly, not sarcastically. "Uphill battle" doesn't even begin to describe it.
I am absolutely in favor of voluntary organizations. Just don't make it illegal for me to work at a job while refusing to join one.
This is true but misleading. Unions can define their bargaining unit as they choose. It is perfectly legal for a union to decide that its bargaining unit consists only of members (ie, people who have signed up for the union and have paid dues to it). That is exactly how unions work in almost every other OECD country, and which is why employees in countries like Germany, the UK, or France often have the choice of which union they want to represent them at their current job (or the choice not to be represented by a third party at all).
In the US, the main labor union syndicates (AFL-CIO, UAW, Teamsters, etc.) have all decided not to pursue this, instead only forming unions when they can get enough support to unionize all employees in a given class.
> You can choose not to pay anything in most states.
Technically true (27 of 50 states), but the main hubs for tech workers are basically all in states where this is not true (California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, etc).
Why all the hostility? If there are changes at your employer that you don't agree with, like unionization, just quit and take a different job. There's approximately zero unionization in the software development field right now, so you'll have tons of choices. No one's going to force you to stay in a union job if you don't want to.