[gowld]

Why are laws that way? On the face it seems like overstepping.

I can see how union gains might be naturally extended to non-union (safety improvements in a factory, say), but I can also see that the union could negotiate for higher wages to cover the cost of running the union, which avoid free-riding concerns.

The issue I would expect is that mandatory membership (or at least mandatory partial-dues for partial benefits, as is common in some municipalities) is required because the union simply wouldn't work if half the labor force opted out and the employer could simply hire all non-union workers; and the Law decided that unions deserve a right to exist, similarly to how the Law decides that a State or City government is mandatory for all residents.

[chrisseaton]

> the union simply wouldn't work if half the labor force opted out

Can't you see how weird this is? 'The law needs to make people be members of a union, because if they didn't the union wouldn't exist and people wouldn't be able to be a member of it.' That's so circular!

Just let people be in a union if they want to be, and not if they don't want to be, and let the union live or die based on people voting with their feet like that.

If your union isn't effective because people aren't joining then you need to change what it is your union offers them.

[JamesBarney]

> but I can also see that the union could negotiate for higher wages to cover the cost of running the union, which avoid free-riding concerns.

You'll have to explain why this gets rid of free-riding concerns?

[s73v3r_]

"Why are laws that way?"

Because the company wants to weaken the unions as much as possible.

[vkou]

> Why are laws that way? On the face it seems like overstepping.

To bust unions. Especially when you combine it with right-to-work legislature.

The end result is that theoretically, unions have a right to exist, as long as they don't actually do anything meaningful.