Probably so. I hope I don't do that. I think I would not do so consciously.
I don't believe that you do. I was rephrasing for clarity, my initial post was somewhat convoluted and didn't say what I wanted it to.
Well let's say that all the shops in an area are union shops. Or maybe most, and the one or two that are not suck. So if you want to work in the area, you're essentially forced to join the unions whether you want to or not. I'm not saying non-union workers should get all benefits that union workers do, but frankly, I do believe saying "if you want to work here you have to pay union dues" is next door (not the same) to extortion. I just don't like the idea.
That's a hypothetical that I haven't experienced personally, and I would think it to be a rather rare scenario, if it exists at all. That said, if a person joins a company that is union, but that individual is non-union, it weakens the power of the union in collective bargaining. First it's one person, then another, the next thing you know there are ten people, 20, 50. That's why unions don't allow non union members in the same shop that are the same trade (at my work, the shop workers are union, but the office staff isn't), because to do so would be a death knell for the union. I believe that I completely understand why you dislike the idea, but given a choice between allowing a non union member in or not, I would choose not to, as that weakens the power of the union, and dilutes my power as an individual, through the group, to demand just compensation. I could argue that most union dues are cheap, and that most unions that I know of have done away with initiation fees, but I think that's irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make. I assume that in your example that you're talking about journeymen and not apprentices. Apprentices have even more of a responsibility to join the union (in a union shop), as it will be the union and not the employer that will be training and credentialing that apprentice until he becomes a journeyman. If a journeyman is trying to join a union shop, and hasn't received any union assistance in his training or credentialing, I can see your point, though it wouldn't make much sense to me why someone who doesn't want to join a union would work in a union dominated trade in a union dominated area.
Again, I'm not against unions as such. I have nothing against collective bargaining. It is certainly one way to keep business owners from taking unfair advantage of the workers without relying on government to do it all. On the other hand (and this is why I oppose unions endorsing candidates and giving union dues to political campaigns) the union members are all individuals and should be treated as such.
And I generally agree with this, though as I stated before and you seemed to agree with, I have no problem with a union endorsing policy proposals that would benefit the union or the workers that comprise it. That is probably the argument for endorsing candidates, but the problem with that is that a candidate isn't a proposal, and with a candidate it's uncertain of what you're getting. A proposal is usually written out and the endorser knows what he is endorsing. A candidate is at best, an educated guess.
Possibly. But when I see people knocking "right to work" (as Xavier did), to me that's like saying people should be made to join the union.
The only time someone should be forced to join a union is when they want to work in a union shop, for the reasons that I've laid out before. I don't think that forced membership is willing membership, kind of like a conscripted army vs. a volunteer army.
For example, if some legal (the italics is for Sirs benefit) immigrant is here to work for a short time to make some money to send home, I don't believe forcing him to pay union dues is good, fair or reasonable.
If he is trying to gain employment in a union shop it is certainly good, fair, and reasonable. Unions (with the possible exception of United Farmworkers) aren't set up for short term employment, it would be a waste of their resources to begin to train and credential someone who will only be with them for a year or two. In my union, it takes 5 years to be vested in pension, and one has to be a journeyman to receive a 401k. Those options aren't available to a temporary worker.
Now I don't say that an employer should not be allowed to decide to hire only union workers. But I think the employer should not be forced to decide all or nothing. He might be willing to give a job to someone non-union who does good work but who, for whatever reason, is not a union worker and not going to be.
The problem with this line of thought goes back to my posting above, in that a few workers (non-union) become many. If an employer has union employees that he is paying $30 an hour for wages/medical/pension/etc., and non union employees that he only has to pay $15 an hour for and not supply medical or pension for, that employer would be foolish to keep paying the higher priced union members, especially if the work of the non-union member is on a par with the union members. That's why union shops don't allow non union members in. It's an easy way for the employer, at the next contract negotiation, to decide "Well, I can get all these cheaper workers in and increase my profit, I don't need to keep paying these other guys extra money and medical etc.". Now imagine this happening in every trade across the country, what would be the result? There would be no unions at all, and in theory what would happen is that the labor market would determine the value of that labor. What would probably happen in actuality is that the business owners would determine that if they can keep wages low, even through agreements with other employers and businesses, and maximize their profits. Only now, because a union shop would be expected to allow non union workers in, the union has no power to negotiate on behalf of its members because they can't leverage wages as a whole, only as a part, thus weakening the power of collective bargaining.
Why should the employer be prevented from doing so?
Because it will wipe out the union, and probably begin a slide that wipes out all unions.
Again, not saying that worker should get the benefits union workers get. I'm basically taking the position of liberty to choose on the part of the employee and the part of the employer.
And I think that I addressed the problem with the two tiered system above. While I understand the liberty aspect of your line of thought, I really don't want someone coming into my work willing to work for half of what I do. That is a direct threat to my job, and a reason why scabs are treated so harshly by unions and its members. If enough people come into my work willing to work for half of what I make, eventually I will either lose my job, through no fault of my own, or be forced to work for half of my previous wage. Now where's the liberty or the right to choose in that?
Well, there are a lot of opinions on that in libertarian circles. Right-to-work laws are sometimes opposed by libertarians on the basis that such laws interfere with private labor contracts. And in every case I know of, the laws do interfere in that. Seems to me, we shouldn't need such laws, but that's an ideal situation.
In an ideal situation, union and shops and non union shops would both exist in equal proportion. I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is union busting and threats and proposals to weaken the power of unions and its workers, whether it's in collective bargaining, trade agreements, or whatever. Union busting is the opposite end of your argument (and I know that you're not arguing for union busting, just pointing this out), where the country would be non union and someone wanting to join a union couldn't. There's no freedom or liberty in that end either. The best situation lies somewhere in the middle of the two.
I feel I should also say that when unions are defended, sometimes anyway, I get reminded of how unions have worked in the past. During the "glorious" (yes, those are sarcasm quotes) New Deal that F.D.R. gave us, unions in many trades were practically mandated, and unions were used to keep undesirables of various sorts, including people with too dark a skin color, from being allowed to work. (It wasn't for no reason that the New Deal National Recovery Administration was often rechristened with names like the "Negro Removal Act".) I'm not saying unions do that now, but I'm wary of unions because of that.
I actually wasn't aware of this, just did a quick google and found some more info on it. That's a horrid situation. I'll be checking out some books at the library this week on union history, this thread has piqued my interest. When I think of people defending the thought of de-unionization, it brings to mind things like the Chehalis Massacre and the Wobblies. I think that we come from two different perspectives on how we view these things. Unions, as any other entity, have good histories and bad ones.
I'm not saying unions do that now, but I'm wary of unions because of that. I'm wary of collectivist/group thinking that tends to ignore people as individuals. So I guess this means I have a bias, but I don't believe it is entirely unreasonable.
I've never considered you or most of your thinking to be unreasonable, quite the opposite, though I think that there are areas where we disagree on this subject.
