[pocket_cheese]

The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company. Without unions, the worst case is a bad company taking advantage of its workers.

If you are a capital owner, I can see why unions are bad. If you are a worker,(i.e. 99.9% of people), I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.

[s1artibartfast]

Unions can also take advantage of employees, and set them against each other.

In my friends union shop, the union prohibits working from home because >50% of union members have to do hands on work and are jealous of the computer workers. The majority had the votes so the union fought against WFH, and management caved.

[nickff]

Some unions can neglect certain locals, especially if the local is small and distinct from the union's 'main area'.

For example, if a group of retail employees forms a new local for a large office worker union, the large union may not put much effort or many resources into achieving a 'good agreement' for the retail employees (because it's not worth the prospective increase in dues). Then, the 'good employees' will leave out of frustration, and only 'bad apples' remain, until the retailer shutters the store for under-performance.

[JoshTriplett]

> The worst case scenario with a union is bad employees taking advantage of a company.

The worst case scenario is bad employees harming other employees or the public. People who create a horrible workplace for others, people who harm the people the company or organization is meant to serve, but can't be fired.

Having robust policies to make it clear this won't happen and is not a goal would go a long way towards countering anti-union sentiment.

[Maursault]

> I have no idea why you wouldn't want unions.

A union can get a monopoly over a certain employer, such that all hires are required to join the union or they don't get the job. Union dues can be half the annual salary with no benefit to the union member unless they remain a member for 10-20 years. Though this practice is technically illegal, it goes on without any Labor Department intervention. Why would you want to give up half your salary for no benefit until you've been working for years?

[maxsilver]

> Union dues can be half the annual salary

Come on, is that really the honest truth? What occupation or union has union dues at 50% of salary?

In the US, UAW's dues max out around ~1.5% of salary (or an hourly approximate equivalent), the teachers union maxes out at 1.6% of salary (highest possible dues cap out at $55/month max), the nursing union dues cap out at $65/month, our local teamsters are approximately ~1.45% of salary ($50/month for someone at a $20/hr job), and so on.

The "expensive Union Dues" mess is almost always FUD or outright lies. Union dues are usually pretty modest.

[Maursault]

Anecdote time. I interviewed for a position that I wanted in the beltway area that paid $70K/yr in the mid-1990s. I had a lot of experience, loved what I did, and personally didn't meet any peers that were as accurate and as fast as I was. The only reason they interviewed me was because they wanted to hire me, and that was the only reason I travelled 400 miles to the interview other than to look for a place to live. Interview went well, and I thought I was taking the job, and when wrapping up, "oh, and by the way, we're a union shop. You'll be required to join the union, and the union dues are $45K/year." I immediately said, "you can't require me to join a union. That's illegal. Nor can you discriminate against me in hiring if I opt not to join." It went in one ear and out the other. I went home with a bad taste in my mouth, reported the employer and my interview experience to the US Labor Dept., but I have no idea if there were any consequences for them, and I seriously expect not.

[maxsilver]

> (the interviewer told me) "the union dues are $45K/year."

Ok, I understand that this is presumably an experience you had in your life once, but like, could you simply not hold a bad opinion against all labour rights forever, just because one person told you an (pretty obvious) blatant lie one time?

[Maursault]

Are your experiences with a union so different? There are a lot of places that will not hire you unless you are a union member. It has become common, and it is very much like a cartel operates. There was a time when unions brought relief to the worker from employer abuse, and increased wages and improved safety standards. But that time is long, long gone, and the focus has turned entirely to money and time off. The only reason for a union to exist today is solely for it to exist. While you get your head around that syllogism, consider that while labor unions are designated non-profit, it says nothing about what its officers can earn.[1] Generally the practice seems to be to financially take advantage of the larger pool of recent members for the benefit of the smaller pool of long-term members while fleecing large employers of profit and growth incentive.

[1] https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-union-presidents-paid-c...

[deltree7]

1) If you are an above average employee, your upside is limited.

2) If you are an employee, you'll pay higher prices in other places.

Unions are cancer. If I wanted socialism, I'd have stayed in my shithole country