[freedomben]

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.

[pseudalopex]

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.

[chimeracoder]

> Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit.

As I've explained above, this is true but misleading. They are required to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, but they can define the bargaining unit however they wish, including defining the bargaining unit to encompass only workers who have decided to sign up for the union and pay their dues. The only thing they cannot do is create contracts which apply to non-members and refuse to represent those non-members.

> Mandatory membership is illegal.

This is a common misconception. Closed shops are illegal, but it is legal for an employer to require (pursuant to a union contract) that employees join the union within 30 days or risk being fired (excluding railway, airline, and government employees).

Unions can also expel members from their union, and if they have an exclusive contract with the employer, this may result in the employer being forced to fire the employee in question, depending on the reason for which they are expelled.

[stale2002]

> Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit.

This statement is misleading to the point of it being a lie.

It is perfectly legal for a union to define the "bargaining unit" as "people who join this origanization".

Unions don't want to do this though. They instead want to force everyone to join.

[pseudalopex]

Federal law does not recognize members-only unions.

[stale2002]

Yes it does...

Members only unions are explicitly in the National Labor Relations Act.

[pseudalopex]

We can quibble about how to describe it, but members-only unions in the US do not have the same standing as majority unions in the US or members-only unions elsewhere. Employers are free to ignore them. They can't negotiate exclusive benefits. Members can't commit to collective bargaining. The prevailing legal opinion seems to be that the NLRA does not allow a union to represent more than 50% but less than 100% of a potential bargaining unit.

[stale2002]

> They can't negotiate exclusive benefits

Well, obviously. They can make whatever negotiations that they want for their own benefits.

What they cannot do is negotiate for other people who have chosen to not join the union, which is what the word "exclusive" implies.

So yes, they can negotiate. For themselves. Not for other people. Which makes sense, why the heck should they have the right to negotiate a contract for people that they don't represent?

The can absolutely negotiate for themselves, though. Just like you and I can negotiate a contract for ourselves.

[Apocryphon]

Then what if the next wave of unions are designed to be voluntary instead of compulsory?

[chimeracoder]

> Then what if the next wave of unions are designed to be voluntary instead of compulsory?

This would require that the AFL-CIO, UAW, Teamsters, SEIU, etc. all reverse decades of their own established policy not to pursue members-only unions.

It would also require legislation that makes it possible for a worker to dissociate from a union that they don't want to represent them. There is immense opposition by labor organizers against anything remotely resembling this shape of law, so it is unlikely to happen.

[Apocryphon]

Given the weakened state of unions in the U.S., perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to start over from a clean slate with new systems and practices.

[chimeracoder]

> perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to start over from a clean slate with new systems and practices.

Yes, but you want to take on both organized labor (AFL-CIO and the like) and anti-labor forces at the same time... well, good luck to you.

I mean that earnestly, not sarcastically. "Uphill battle" doesn't even begin to describe it.

[Apocryphon]

Disruption is the name of the game, after all.

[freedomben]

Then they would have my full support.