[bombcar]

The argument is understandable - if you're not forced to join the union and pay for it, then everyone will just not join and let the union still negotiate on their behalf; and it'll have no money to operate and fall apart.

However, I'm sure there would be other ways (for example, if the union is negotiating with the company, the company can just pay for the union, it does indirectly through salary anyway).

[JWlrCk9PkipFTDq]

Yeah for sure - I can see why compulsory unionism is a thing for historical reasons and understand the argument for maintaining it but fundamentally disagree on principle (freedom of political association etc.).

Voluntary membership is a hard problem for unions, and in Australia declining union membership is a big thing outside of industries like construction that still have unionism as a core part of the working culture. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see the benefits they gain from union membership when most of the basic working rights that unions have won are taken for granted, and a lot of the bargaining and political lobbying work they do is somewhat abstract.

It always seems strange to me how much anti-union sentiment there seems to be in the US though. Not to say that Australia is perfect by any means but labour conditions in the US seem pretty insane as an outsider.

[bombcar]

I feel (especially in construction) that unions missed a chance to become a "guarantee of quality" - basically, certify that their members perform to a baseline, and if you have an issue with work they did, the union (or the company) will make it right. Basically self-policing.

[zeroonetwothree]

If you aren’t in the union you should have to negotiate your own contract. I don’t see why you would get the fruits of the union’s labor if you aren’t a part of it.

That way if the union does a good job, workers will join, and if it does a bad job they won’t.