[stale2002]

> So you can't really opt out. Unless of course you go and work for companies who don't sign the EBA

Actually there is a better way. The better way is to do everything in your power as a worker and citizen to prevent the union from being formed in the first place. Either at YOUR company, or at any others, even if you don't work there. As well as by pushing for any law that reduces the power of unions.

A union can't force you to pay dues if they are crippled country wide.

And this has been what has been happening in the US for decades, as unions are less powerful than they have ever been.

Don't like that attitude? Well then the pro-union people shouldn't have pushed to require people to pay dues.

The fundamental problem is that the more power that unions get, the more likely they are to invade whatever industry I am in and destroy. I don't ever want to risk THAT.

[johnvonneumann]

And what incentive do collective groups have to do that? I struggle to understand why people would act against their own self-interests to undermine their own rights and pay. Did you know that global wage growth is being outstripped by inflation?

What good does crippling unions do? You think it's useful for large portions of the community to be on stifled wages and bad working conditions?

Unions are less powerful in the US because the US has a broken system where those with money have more votes than those with less? There is a financial interest in having the "mere peons" on less cash because it results in a better balance sheet situation for executives and share holders, resulting in better EOY dividends and better bonuses.

I support Unions because of people like you, because for some fucking unknown reason, people like you believe that some are entitled to less because they are employed in xxxx profession or don't have xxxx degree.

The fundamental problem is that unions are REQUIRED, if there was a bigger sense of social responsibilty, people would get paid decent living wages and wouldn't be worked in horrendously dangerous conditions dealing with power brokers whose only interest is their own portfolio value.

Please, get away from the trickle down economics bullshit and come back to the real world. How much evidence of corporate malfeasance do you have to see on a daily basis before realising that protecting the rights of the 99% is not only a good economic decision, but also a humane one.

[stale2002]

> And what incentive do collective groups have to do that?

Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.

We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.

We do not want gigantic barriers to entry, meant only to discriminate against people who couldn't afford to buy a fancy 4 year piece of paper.

We do not want discrimination against young people (ie, seniority pay requirements) forced into our contracts. We want to be judged equally on our own merits.

We do not want to be stuck in an organization that we can basically never get rid of once it is established.

I believe that I am way better off without any union forcing me to join.

And apparently a whole lot of other people ALSO agree with me.

We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.

This is not some rare, weird, opinion that I hold. This is the MAJORITY opinion. Unions are less popular than ever, because we the workers don't want them.

[johnvonneumann]

> Because we do not want the union "benefits" that aren't really benefits.

"The union protects and improves Members' wages and conditions. Our successful bargaining campaigns continue to deliver fair wages and better conditions like superannuation, site allowances, redundancy pay and income protection. In the year 2000 this branch of the CFMEU won the 36 hour week, giving workers 26 paid days off a year."

Also get 5% YOY pay rises, which allows wages to stay in line with inflation instead of stagnating. You're being naive with your comments IMO, ignoring the reality of the matter and trying to pitch us into a "everyone's different and should be able to negotiate" which has been shown to be damaging. How much data do you need to see about stagnating wage growth and consistently growing executive wages to see that this "we don't need unions" argument is ignorant of the truth?

> We do not want another group controlling our workplace or forcing us into horrible, one size fits all, collective bargaining agreements. We want to be allowed to negotiate for ourselves.

http://www.epi.org/blog/strengthening-collective-bargaining-...

http://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays-unions-help-workin...

You can believe what you want, you do realise that most of them don't FORCE you to join, but you will likely just be treated like a leech, which is appropriate.

Please provide some data for your claims because I'm straight up gonna say you're wrong on the majority of your points.

> We believe that it is very much in the self interest of workers to prevent unions from destroying our industry with overbearing rules and regulations that prevent us from doing our job.

This one (and a few of your other comments strike a nerve) because I think that you have the entire purpose of unions confused, unions are there to provide workers, me and you, your parents, normal non-1%ers, an opportunity to get a fairer distribution of the pie, not ALL of the pie, just what is fair. If you actually provided some concrete examples of industries where you don't think the unions should be, I could have easily pulled data up on their profits, compared it to their workers wages, and it would be a lot easier to make the point that most companies can afford to pay workers better wages, which is a win-win for everyone, the idea that if I work at McDonalds, and am an enterprising individual, and ask for a pay rise vs my other workers, is laughable, why would they bother? They've crushed dissenters, and now because of the shit conditions you work in, they'll just fire you and grab someone who doesn't ask for better conditions. It's an incentive disparity, companies have no interest in paying workers more.

For example:

https://twitter.com/VirginTrains/status/881138129176014848

Here's a good one, ITT they acknowledged that they understaff consistently and expect workers to be able to work their rest days so they can keep staffing requirements low. Then naturally, it's the workers fault when they actually take their rest days.

Man, the more I read this comment, the more I think you're just trolling.

[stale2002]

I can't possibly be trolling if I am stating the majority opinion. Most people these days do not support unions.

5% YOY raises is very low and I would hate to be stuck in that kind of collective bargaing agreement that forced me to accept it. No, I'd rather negotiate on my own and get a much better one.

And yes, unions DO force you to join, because if you don't pay their fee, and accept their bargaining agreement, then you get fired.

If they don't want to force people to join, then I guess it shouldn't be a bad idea to pass right to work laws, that make it illegal to force workers to pay the fees under threat of being fired.

If you like unions, or other people do, then that would be fine if these union people didn't make these rules that cause people to be fired, because they disagree with your opinion on unions (which is a whole lot of people!)

This is not just 1 or 2 people. This is lots and lots of people who disagree with your opinion on how great unions are. And these people should be left alone.

But because they refuse to leave them alone, then there can be no compromise.

That's the biggest problem with union people. They can't possibly understand that people could disagree with them, and don't want their "help".