[thunkpad]

As far as I understand they are "partisan" not by design but as a result of representing their interests (which, in my opinion, should always represent the aggregate of the workers the union represents -- which is sadly not so)

Please do correct me if I'm wrong! That's my favorite way to learn. I've grown a lot from being the least-informed gal in the room.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'd agree with that understanding, but it only makes it so much better, since it still means a union can end up supporting candidates or legislation that I oppose even though they might be bad for my career interests.

[thunkpad]

Oh absolutely. We aren't going to fix the external (relative to unions) conditions of labor by creating a more perfect union.

[burfog]

Whatever the cause may be, that counts as "partisan".

It infuriates many of the workers. They start off angry from being forced to pay an undesired membership fee, essentially a private income tax, and then the union pours salt in their wounds by lobbying to maintain the forced relationship and by supporting politicians that anger the workers.

Imagine being forced to fund your most hated politician. That is the reality for millions of American workers.

Unions represent the interests of unions. Workers would be better served by class-action lawsuits, which sadly are being suppressed due to a supreme court decision that allowed forced arbitration. That supreme court decision was not based on constitutionality, and thus could be undone with a simple ordinary act of congress. Unions could also be wiped out by congress. Doing both at the same time would make sense. Class action lawsuits are a far less corrupt way to address worker abuse.

[boomboomsubban]

There is no US industry so dominated by unions that you are forced to be a member of one, if a worker takes a union job they know what they're getting in to.

I don't understand why you're connecting forced arbitration to unions. Also, it's hard to see how unions aren't a form of free speech.

[thunkpad]

That makes sense, thank you!

My preferred solution to this kind of problem would be more akin to worker ownership or at very least worker involvement in steering decisions (board positions, etc). But I also despise forced arbitration. Absolutely abhorrent.

[plushpuffin]

It's funny that you lament the suppression of class-action lawsuits without considering why they are in decline. They are in decline because corporations want them to go away.

The scenario you advocate is:

1. Unions are outlawed.

2. Class-action lawsuits are fully restored.

3. Employees seek redress from their employer by filing a class-action lawsuit for every instance of abuse.

This is not a stable scenario. You can't just set it up and expect it to stay that way. Laws change. Corporations delight in changing laws for their own benefit. The inevitable and near-immediate result of this:

1. Corporations lobby the government to make class-action lawsuits (in general, or just specifically workers vs their employer) illegal, or to allow employment contracts to require forced arbitration.

2. Corporations rewrite their employment contracts to require forced arbitration, which always favors the corporation because it has more resources than a single person and is the one paying the arbitrator. I can guarantee you they will include a clause like this even if it's illegal, because who's going to stop them?

3. Corporations can now deal with workers one-on-one, which is a recipe for abuse.

4. Any worker who agitates to start a new class-action lawsuit is summarily dismissed for violating their employment contract.

5. In the interim period before class-action lawsuits by workers are neutered and made impossible, corporations will simply drag the cases through the court system slowly, accepting the ongoing lawsuits as a cost of doing business. They will always by definition have more resources and more ability to absorb this cost than the workers.

The only way workers can exert any power over their employer is by organizing and striking, because that's the only way to comprehensively disrupt the corporation's capital flow and bring them to the bargaining table before the workers run out their savings. The end result of this strike must always be the formation of a union, or the strike is ultimately pointless. A union must be formed so that the employer knows any attempt to abuse its workers will result in an immediate response which hurts their bottom line. A class-action lawsuit takes years to play out, and workers don't have that long!

The formation of a union requires the following:

1. The corporation recognizes the union and agrees to deal with it by signing a contract.

2. The corporation agrees not to retaliate against union members for union activities.

3. The union is allowed to conduct its activities and collect fees to pay administrative costs, legal fees, and for political activism (to defend its right to exist against corporate lobbying).

3. The contract must always stipulate that the corporation will not hire non-union workers. Allowing this would be a death knell for the union because the lack of such a clause means the corporation will just hire non-union workers in the future until the union has been starved of funds and collapses.

These are just basic facts and inference supported by the history of the labor movement. Your assertion that workers hate the fees and hate the politicians supported by the unions is in dire need of citations and references. Your entire post seems less like a logical, well-thought-out argument and more like blatant anti-union propaganda.