[sokoloff]

> A professional Union needs funds to do its work.

Absolutely true.

> Over time the benefits members get more than pay for the union dues.

That strikes me as an opinion that could use some supporting facts. It might be the case, but union fees are the same order of magnitude as many workers' savings rate. If the prospective member saved those fees over a lifetime, would they be better off?

> If there's a strike at least in Europe the union will also use the dues to cover the salary for the days striking.

That means that union members are buying insurance against there being a strike declared. Would they be better off to pay smaller dues and bear the risk themselves? If all possible strikes are union-wide, it seems like this insurance can only be a losing gamble for members, all the while creating a fat piggybank for union leaders to raid/drain.

[pseudalopex]

Numerous studies say union workers make more on average even accounting for dues. I'll give you 1.[1]

Unions have to disclose financial statements. Leaders can't just raid the strike fund. And there won't be a strike fund unless most members vote for it.

[1] https://illinoisepi.org/site/wp-content/themes/hollow/docs/w...

[sokoloff]

If I'm reading that study correctly, those figures have an R² of around 0.23, which is quite low for explanatory power of wages as dependent on union membership (quite low as in the "none" or "very low" range)