[pmyteh]

Only if union membership is both required and restricted. In each of my workplaces, union membership has been optional and open to anyone who works there. It's weaker bargaining-wise than a closed shop with entry requirements, but we've still been able to collectively negotiate to better outcomes (the current round is UCU's dispute with the universities and their pension fund over proposed changes to the pension scheme, which we look to be fighting off).

[r_smart]

Fair enough. I'm used to union arrangements where membership is required for the given profession, which is pretty common in the US.

There's been a movement to right to work, but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit.

[vkou]

> There's been a movement to right to work

By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less.

> but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit.

What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them.

[r_smart]

|By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less.

Unions can keep people out of professions in a lot of places in the US. Right to work makes it so union membership isn't mandatory. Surely if the union is so awesome, voluntary membership would work just fine.

|What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them.

Take it up with the union leadership, not me pal. They're the ones agitating for this stuff.