If your coworkers are unionizing, maybe it would be polite to at least attempt to understand their reasons and goals before dismissing it outright as something you don't want or need.
Organized labor has introduced customs that you benefit from and take for granted.
All you have to do is look at the difference in quality of life that came before and after the changes we obtained from organized labor in the 1800s/early 1900s.
Most people don't appreciate the extreme asymmetry between those who control capital and those who create the wealth of nations (26 individuals have the same worth as 3.5 Billion individuals)
In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.
>In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.
My wife is from the UK, I've looked into things there. I make 4 times what I would make in the UK, and that's before the additional taxes I'd pay (and before you ask the additional taxes for the NHS exceeds my spend for health insurance + copays). Sure they get about two weeks more vacation but I wouldn't trade that for 3/4ths of my salary why should I be forced to do so?
You're already prefacing that you don't need unions, it's impossible to argue against that. If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else. The argument is that you will know whether or not the tool is useful if you do some research.
I posit that if the market of the labor you're offering isn't very advantageous to you anymore, and if you're being mistreated by an employer when you're in a position where you can't use your financial means or time to fight back for whatever reasons, you will feel the need of someone else to fight for you because you can't just find an employer that will shower you with money two blocks away. And when I say "mistreated" I mean that everything you are entitled to in your contract is not something you can count on, so no severance, and when I say you're not in a financial position to fight back I mean that you don't have the means or the time to sue, even if you're 100% in the clear legally.
If you believe that will never happen, you're likely correct. I don't think my apartment will be on fire without me noticing too, it's a very low risk of that ever happening in my life, but I still want a smoke detector. I just can't take the risk. Same thing with union membership for me, I can't take the risk of being treated the same way my ex-wife was treated when she was simultaneously struggling with depression (and wouldn't have gotten anything she was entitled to from her employer during her medical leave if someone else hadn't fought for her).
> If you don't need or want a union membership, don't get one, nobody is saying anything else.
That is incorrect, in the US if my workplace decides to unionize I'm forced to pay union dues. I am fully in my right to criticize unions as they can be foisted upon me without my consent.
Wow, what a weird and counterproductive way to implement unions. In Sweden, that's not even remotely how unions work, they're voluntary. That's a pretty messed up system you have, would you be more interested if they're fully voluntary?
Not OP, but I'm against unions in the US for many of the same reasons. Yes, my quarrels would be fully resolved if the unions were completely voluntary.
However, unions here in the US have done untold amounts of lobbying to government and employers to make them mandatory. The argument is usually that, "if membership is voluntary, some people will forgo membership but still reap the benefits of our negotiations, therefore you must force them to join us." Considering that many politicians (particularly in rust belt states) win office by getting big union endorsements, this tactic works very well.
I would be likely to join a union that was voluntary, because if the leadership started doing things I disagreed with, I could quit the union, or join a competing union that was more in line with my beliefs.
Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. States can decide whether unions can recover those costs from all workers they represent or just members. Mandatory membership is illegal.
Both entrenched unions and corporate interests support the status quo. It strengthens strong unions but makes organizing new unions harder.
I'd have no problem with you joining a union provided I'm not required to also do so or pay any dues. I just don't see any benefit at the current time so I'd have little interest. It seems like another layer of bureaucratic game playing to navigate and additional costs from my perspective.
Federal law forces unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. You can choose not to pay anything in most states. In the rest, you are forced to pay an "agency fee" for the services the union is forced to provide you.
> Federal law forces unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit.
This is true but misleading. Unions can define their bargaining unit as they choose. It is perfectly legal for a union to decide that its bargaining unit consists only of members (ie, people who have signed up for the union and have paid dues to it). That is exactly how unions work in almost every other OECD country, and which is why employees in countries like Germany, the UK, or France often have the choice of which union they want to represent them at their current job (or the choice not to be represented by a third party at all).
In the US, the main labor union syndicates (AFL-CIO, UAW, Teamsters, etc.) have all decided not to pursue this, instead only forming unions when they can get enough support to unionize all employees in a given class.
> You can choose not to pay anything in most states.
Technically true (27 of 50 states), but the main hubs for tech workers are basically all in states where this is not true (California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, etc).
> That is incorrect, in the US if my workplace decides to unionize I'm forced to pay union dues. I am fully in my right to criticize unions as they can be foisted upon me without my consent.
Why all the hostility? If there are changes at your employer that you don't agree with, like unionization, just quit and take a different job. There's approximately zero unionization in the software development field right now, so you'll have tons of choices. No one's going to force you to stay in a union job if you don't want to.