[anigbrowl]

'I'm offering you less than non-union workers because you union members have chosen to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits, and working conditions' isn't a reasonable argument. Owners and agents of capital are able to communicate freely with each other, participate in corporate elections and so on, why shouldn't those selling their time & labor be able to do the same?

[brightlancer]

IANAL but when I looked into this ~15 years ago, my understanding was non-union workers have a legal right "to communicate with each other about your pay, benefits, and working conditions". That doesn't come from union membership.

Unions have the ability to _force_ collective bargaining, but worker protections aren't restricted to union members.

[anigbrowl]

Certainly, but many employers discourage this practice. I'm characterizing the employer's basis for offering less than the default to union members.

[luckylion]

> Owners and agents of capital are able to communicate freely with each other

Not really, and with good reason Google, Apple & co were punished when they "communicated" with each other to suppress wages by not competing with each other.

But that's besides the point. If you negotiate (or delegate the negotiation) a deal, you're doing so independent from others who might or might not negotiate a deal as well. Union employees certainly won't mind if they get more than non-union employees. Yet, when the union agrees to a worse deal, it's suddenly abhorrent and criminal.

It's understandable, employees are capitalists as well and optimize for maximum profit, but it's also pretty much what everyone everywhere goes through. If you buy a meal for $5 and someone else tomorrow buys the same meal and haggles it down to $4, should you get $1 back?