[kevstev]

Yeah, but when the union head starts paying themselves 300k and despite good living wages and benefits still maintain a large/expensive organizational structure and offices, etc... you still have to be a part of that union- you have very little sway to try to change anything.

Forcing people to join a union is not all that much better than preventing one in the first place IMHO.

[gowld]

I'd rather pay the union head 300k then the union members get 300k less pay or whatever.

By the logic above, working for a corporation where the head starts paying themselves 300k (or 3M!) and maintains a large/expensive organizational structure and offices is not all that much better than preventing incorporation in the first place.

[elicash]

Unions are democratic institutions. Officers can be voted on. The only way to effect change in the union is to participate. Much like democracy!

[moate]

Yea, the idea that individual workers somehow benefit in these types of situations if there's no union in place is weird.

The Worker Vs. Company conflicts that come up always favor a Company because they have more time, resources, and connections than an typical worker. The union's goal should always be to represent the needs of most workers most of the time, but there obviously will be situations where that puts an individual worker and their union at odds. This doesn't seem like a fatal flaw in the system any more than people will be elected to federal office who don't share your worldview.

[dopamean]

Delta flight attendants aren't unionized (my step mother is one) and they are very anti union. They believe pretty strongly that they have a good relationship with management and do no need a union. From what I gather it's pretty unusual at least in the (US) airline industry.

[dopamean]

I just want to point out that when my mother was president of her local teachers' union prior to joining NYSUT her stipend was at most a couple thousand dollars for the year.