[bkohlmann]

As a conservative, I fully support the right to unionize. It's a bedrock of free association and the free market. I happen to also believe unionization is wrong for many industries, but folks should be able to make those choices on their own. Many conservatives I know believe the same.

[IanDrake]

I believe people have a right to unionize so long as that is balanced out with a company's right to not hire anyone from a union. Free association has two sides.

[scarmig]

Should a union have the right to negotiate a contract to hire only workers from the union?

[stale2002]

I just want it to be equal, whatever the situation is.

Either it is legal to negotiate union shop contracts, like you suggest, AND it is legal for companies to fire all union people, OR it is illegal to do both of those things.

[IanDrake]

If the company agrees to it, I don’t see why not.

It sounds like a bad idea for everyone except the union leaders, but I’ve seen other non-union based agreements like this where companies completely outsourced HR.

As a Union leader though, I now have a rather captive audience where I serve as the gatekeeper to any job someone might want at the company and gatekeeper to any employee the company might want. That seems like a recipe for abuse.

Low and behold, there are lots of examples of abuse by union leaders which a quick google search will show.

[s73v3r_]

"It sounds like a bad idea for everyone except the union leaders"

How is it a bad idea for the union members? Cause the alternative is no union at all.

And how, exactly, does the employer being able to choose if they want a union not lead to abuse?

"Low and behold, there are lots of examples of abuse by union leaders which a quick google search will show."

For every instance of union abuse, you can find tenfold the number of examples of company abuse.

[IanDrake]

Assuming we’re still talking about a union having an exclusive deal with a company to provide labor...

>How is it a bad idea for the union members?

The paradox of this question is that you have to be a union member to get the job. If you have to be a member to work, then you must take what the union will give you and you must pay the union its dues. How is the union incentivized to keep dues down if you have to pay them? How is it incentivized to keep pay up, if you have to pay them?

>Cause the alternative is no union at all.

I’m not sure I follow. You’re saying that unions provide so little value to members that they wouldn’t voluntarily join the union given the option? I would have to agree with you.

>And how, exactly, does the employer being able to choose if they want a union not lead to abuse?

I’m just not sure what you mean here. Can people be abused if they don’t have unions? Can people be abused if they do have unions. Yes and yes.

Again, I get that voluntarily unions can have value, but being forced into a union has little value since there is NO motivation for a union to provide any value when your membership is mandatory.

Imagine if you had to pay Netflix a monthly due just because you had a TV. How hard do you think would Netflix work to get you the best programming it could deliver?

Answer: Not very hard. Sure maybe this alternative world Netflix started with good intentions...if every person who had a TV was forced to pay them money, Netflix could do great things...but then, after a while, the great things stop coming and people keep paying. There is no inducement for performance so performance will decline. These are immutable realities.

[s73v3r_]

No, that's just you believing that no one should be able to unionize, just being too timid to come out and say so.

[IanDrake]

If a union is so good then a company would not be able to hire anyone outside of the union because everyone would want to be in the union.

It’s a voluntary system. Anything else is just tyranny.

[AnimalMuppet]

Please don't put words in others' mouth, and please don't ascribe bad motives to posters (even if they disagree with you). Even if that's how you normally post, don't do it here.

[s73v3r_]

I fail to see why it's a bad thing to give people heads up to what the actual outcomes of their positions lead to. Saying that employers should be able to not hire union workers means that they won't hire any union workers, meaning that the union won't be able to exist.

[AnimalMuppet]

You're not just "giving people a head's up". You're also making a claim that IanDrake is, essentially, being dishonest.

You want to point out (what you perceive to be) the actual results of someone's position? Fine. Feel free to do so. But don't claim that they believe those results but are unwilling to say so. You don't have the knowledge to make that claim, so you are being dishonest when you do so.

[s73v3r_]

"You're not just "giving people a head's up". You're also making a claim that IanDrake is, essentially, being dishonest."

Because I believe they are, if not just with us, then with themselves.

"You want to point out (what you perceive to be) the actual results of someone's position? Fine. Feel free to do so. But don't claim that they believe those results but are unwilling to say so. You don't have the knowledge to make that claim, so you are being dishonest when you do so."

And I disagree. Those outcomes are very, very obvious. If you do not realize those outcomes, then you are being dishonest.