[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.