If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.
Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?
Very similar to the myth of 'predatory pricing'.
Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction.
But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
At best, unions provide a redistributive function (transferring income from high-performing to low-performing employees). In practice, their net benefit to employees is negative.
> The question is why should interactions with the shareholder reps be compulsory, but not the employee reps? Why is compulsion fine for one but not the other?
The shareholders own the company. They bought it from the original founders and employees who built it. Without shareholders, there would be no company.
Unions are just mafia bosses who showed up later demanding to be paid. They were never involved in value creation.
This is incorrect. A company is more than the employees. See holding companies or any of the many companies that have gone through mass layoffs/restructuring.
> You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders.
I’m not forced, the whole point of wanting to work for a company is to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement where you make them money and get money in return.
> You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union
This is a third party that has no business interfering with the agreement I’m trying to enter into with a company to sell it my labor.
> It’s identical compulsion either way.
I don’t think you know what “compulsion” means. One of the things is voluntary, one is not.
> At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract.
They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union. Those are not at all the same thing.
First, I don't think there are 'peasants who "need unions"'.
Second, there are people who might want a union to negotiate for them. Just like there are people who prefer having a lawyer represent them in court. Having such preferences (or not) doesn't make anyone superior or inferior. But it also doesn't mean that we should all have the same preferences.
> [...], possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.
Eh, lots of organisation, including companies or political parties or charities, do that kind of stuff all the time. Doesn't mean that I want that I automatically want to hire the services of any such organisation.
Eg I'm fairly sure that most churches are run by basically altruistic people who only have my salvation in mind. Understanding that doesn't make me into a Christian.
I’m someone who is not necessarily pro-union but understand that working conditions could be improved. A great example is 40 hour work weeks. I have never been in a union but because there are laws regulating a standard work week and mandating overtime if you go over, I have benefited from that. We could all collectively as a country lobby for this instead of each individual workplace fighting the same battle one thousand times over.
Not every anti-union argument is based on the one you are postulating.
There may be philosophical reasons to oppose a union, but contracting isn’t generally an issue. If you have more negotiating power than the union, you can just negotiate on top of the union contract, like sports and entertainment stars do.
Most software developers, even top performers, are not brand name celebrities. If the union forces everyone to follow a contract, they will need to comply. Realistically, tech unions will end up looking a lot more like journalist unions than football stars.
This is explicitly the goal of the new NYT union: they are looking to "begin negotiations for a contract with management."
Some union boss negotiating my employment contract is my worst nightmare. I have friends who work in union companies and they hate the union's policies but are terrified of going against the union bosses.
Basketball teams have a salary cap for their entire roster.
"Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.
If the company consents and an employee comments consents, why is the union when relevant? Why should they be able to barge in and mandate their terms?
Why do you only make this exception for suppliers of labor?
We have laws against corporations using market power to force monopolies. Unions also should not be able to legally monopolize the labor market.
A union is just a counterweight to executives. If you are not paying for the former, you are definitely paying for the latter.
Unions are a tool, not a goal.