[MrStonedOne]

My view is that laws must keep unions from acting in bad faith before forced unions can be allowed to exist.

The primary positive effect of a union is its appeals process that keep employers from firing you on a whim.

Nothing about that positive effect requires the union be forced upon you, and if unions had to earn their dues they wouldn't act in bad faith as often.

[rumanator]

> My view is that laws must keep unions from acting in bad faith before forced unions can be allowed to exist.

Who said anything about forced unions? We're talking about allowing unions to exist so that workers are free to join them if that happens to be their wish.

I mean, we're having a discussion on how corporations use their coercive power and influence over workers lives to degrade their lives to serve the interests of a few, and somehow you're expecting to shift the conversation to how bad unions are if we don't get a say whether we join one or not?

[kergonath]

In which actual country is forced unionisation a thing? It sounds more like stupid local laws than a flaw in the concept of trade unions.

[PeterisP]

Unions can (and, if they're strong and it's not prohibited, often do) make collective agreements with the employer that mandate that the employer will not be permitted to employ non-union workers for these jobs. In a "closed union shop" you'd be required to join the union when you're hired, and if you would not join or if you would get kicked out of the union, the employer would have to fire you. This is pretty much 'forced unionisation'.

Another possible part of such collective agreements is that the employer will withhold union dues and hand them to the union no matter if the employee wants to join or not; to prevent the 'free rider' effect where some employees get the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for the representation (the appropriateness of this argument can be debated, but that's at least the stated intent).

In about half of USA ("right to work" states) such agreements are illegal, and in about half of USA unions can have such practices.

[kergonath]

Yeah, stupid laws then. Considering whether someone is in a union or not before hiring them is discriminating and ought to be illegal. Thanks for the background.

[MrStonedOne]

How it works in my state is every grocery chain (except walmart) joined an employer union, called allied employers inc, and they negotiated a union contract with UFCW21. (yes, the employer's answer to unions, was to start their own union)

The effect is every grocery chain in the area has the same price-fixed wage they offer, price-fixed benefits, and etcra.

Don't like your wage at Fred Meyers? too bad, the safeway down the road is in the same union contract and thus the same wage.

Get kicked out because an unexpected financial/medical expense killed your ability to pay dues? too bad, none of the other chains in the area can hire you until you pay off the back dues, that you can't pay because you can't get a job.

Union is holding a vote to strike and pushing out misleading information when really the only provision the employer is objecting too is a new one that requires the employer pay the union dues for any unfilled position because the union just wants to make more money so they can vote themselves into a raise? too bad, you can only communicate with people on your shift at your location in your section of the store, the union however has mandated access to break rooms, as well a mailing and email broadcasts.

What people don't seem to get, is that sometimes, the power unions get from getting so large, can be used against the employees, not just the employer.

But you can't even bring that up without getting strawmanned as a republican union hater.

I haven't even gotten into programmer unions, with high dues and 9k initiation fees that get voted for because nobody who votes it will have to pay it as they are already in.