[hawkice]

Unions aren't acting in the interest of the people generically, often not even the members of the union. Otherwise they wouldn't go to court to force people who don't even want to be in the union to pay dues, even when the dues go to political campaigns unrelated to the purpose of the union, as in Janus v. AFSCME (where the support for political causes by the union meant it violated public sector workers freedom of speech if they are compelling fees from non-members, a relatively narrow ruling not impacting most unions).

[beryilma]

> Otherwise they wouldn't go to court to force people who don't even want to be in the union...

Even worse, they might request your dismissal if you don't join. Here is a direct quote from the Union agreement of a major university, where I teach part-time: "The Union may request that a Part-time Faculty Member who fails to join the Union, maintain Union membership, pay an agency fee, or make a charitable contribution in lieu of an agency fee shall be dismissed. If the Union makes such a request, the Employer shall comply... If the Part-time Faculty Member fails to pay within that time period, and the Union so verifies, the Part-time Faculty Member’s employment will be terminated at the Union’s request".

If anything, unions are only acting in their own interest.

[sircastor]

Arguably, a union has to hold the position of requiring membership, and against those who don’t want to join. Collective bargaining only works when your position represents the group to the point where it can’t be dismissed.

But yeah, It’s challenging for a union to remain exclusively dedicated to serving its membership. I think it’s increasingly complicated with national unions which exist for the sake of unions as a concept, but not necessarily any union members.

It’s weird.

[Jensson]

Unions doesn't work that way in Europe, it is not something unions must do.

Collective bargaining works as long as you are a collective that bargains together, you don't need to have every single person be a art of that collective.

[elicash]

I strongly disagree with you about Janus.

The point of that decision by a right-wing court was to make it harder for public sector workers to stand together in unions. Unions are democratic institutions, with dues and leadership decided by the membership, and the idea that some people pay and some don't even though the entire unit is represented doesn't make a ton of sense. Just like it wouldn't make sense if 2 people in a unit of 1000 wanted to be in a particular union to just say those 2 can bargain collectively.

The weird "speech" argument was basically that their worksite issues are inherently political. I disagree. Unions have separate political funds from the worksite stuff that are optional.

[devilbunny]

> public sector workers

A group for whom even FDR, the great co-opter of unions, had to pretend to be opposed to unionization.

Seriously, civil service protections are there for you and don't apply to private-sector employees. But you claim the right to strike against your fellow citizens and deprive them of government services? This isn't Andrew Carnegie; it's your fellow citizens.

[elicash]

1. I’m not a public sector worker, weird assumption.

2. I advocate for private sector to unionize as well. I’m not the one who brought up Janus/private sector.

3. You’re telling me people with important jobs (private or public) shouldn’t be able to strike to improve the very services we all depend on? Hospital workers striking for better patient ratios? Teachers for their students?

Taking away those freedoms is wrong and dangerous.

[devilbunny]

"You" being used impersonally here; I don't mean you specifically.

Private sector unions are crap under US law, but they're a good concept in general.

No, public sector employees should not be allowed to strike. They get special protections (civil service) that do not apply to private-sector workers. Public sector workers work for the rest of us; we're not all fat-cat capitalists taking their potential wages to make ourselves rich. We're their fellow citizens, and when government employees strike, what's the average citizen to do? Your mother died while abroad, your passport is expired, but hey, the State Department clerks are on strike, so guess what? You're not going.

You want things to change, vote someone in who agrees with you like any other citizen. The only strike-breaking measure that's easily available to the government (due to civil-service laws) is conscripting everyone in the job or replacing them with military/National Guard, which is swatting a fly with a Buick.

[elicash]

I think our fundamental disagreement is that I view public sector employment as more similar to private sector in the day-to-day than you do.

Secondarily, I think you fail to think through what happens when PRIVATE sector workers like hospital workers, or nursing home workers, or other important jobs go on strike. It can't just be the case that if the general public is hurt by it, they lose worker protections. Especially when often the goals of those strikes are to improve the services. There's not really a reason to separate out private from public sector here. Private sector jobs are also important to the general public.