What exactly is wrong with being "forced to join a union"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've heard people talk about this in regards to "right to work", which is itself a stupid term for what I'll get into. Truth is even ignoring the free rider problem I have zero sympathy for people not wanting to join unions. Let me explain.

First of all everyone has a "right to work" without dealing with a union, which is what the term means: They can work a job that doesn't have a union. But what if there's a better and higher paying union job? Well maybe that's the reason. And why does it matter anyway?

Let's say someone is offered two jobs. A union job that pays $3000/month, and a non-union job that pays $2800/month. If they have to pay union dues of $50/month for the first job, then it's effectively $2950/month, aka still better than the other job. (Yes I know taxes, I'm using simplistic numbers) So what downside do they have to take that job or belong to the union? They don't have to attend union meetings or even vote, they just have to pay union dues, and still have more take home pay than the other job.

So if the union went away from that job, and then the job also started paying $2800/month, how does that benefit anyone who works there?

"Forced union membership" is not only incredibly misleading, it doesn't even really infringe on anyone's rights. It just means the person has to make a payment that more than pays for itself in higher wages...so where's the problem?

[SNJ1985]

Union dues help pay for their political contributions, in one way or the other. They find ways to get around laws dictating that they can't use dues in such a manner.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/11/03/big-political-spending-by-unions-paid-with-dues/#daa3d064de2a

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[courts]

nothing

[dead0man]

You're making a lot of claims and throwing a lot of numbers out there.  Someone esle could come along and make opposite claims and throw out their own numbers.  How do we know who is right?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

You're making a lot of claims and throwing a lot of numbers out there.  Someone esle could come along and make opposite claims and throw out their own numbers.  How do we know who is right?

On Atlas, its assume the liberal side is right.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're making a lot of claims and throwing a lot of numbers out there.  Someone esle could come along and make opposite claims and throw out their own numbers.  How do we know who is right?

Are you saying there's no evidence unionized workplaces drive up wages?

[dead0man]

You're making a lot of claims and throwing a lot of numbers out there.  Someone esle could come along and make opposite claims and throw out their own numbers.  How do we know who is right?

Are you saying there's no evidence unionized workplaces drive up wages?

In industries that rely on people buying their product yes, temporarily, then it kills the industry because it's suddenly noncompetitive. (doubly so if the union is for low or no skill jobs) For industries where the customer is the tax payer, yeah, they do a great job robbing us blind, but I don't mind the robbery as much as the protecting horrible employees bit.

[Person Man]

You're making a lot of claims and throwing a lot of numbers out there.  Someone esle could come along and make opposite claims and throw out their own numbers.  How do we know who is right?

Are you saying there's no evidence unionized workplaces drive up wages?

In industries that rely on people buying their product yes, temporarily, then it kills the industry because it's suddenly noncompetitive. (doubly so if the union is for low or no skill jobs) For industries where the customer is the tax payer, yeah, they do a great job robbing us blind, but I don't mind the robbery as much as the protecting horrible employees bit.

Would then union participation be bigger in RTW states because the incentive to unionize be greater if wages didn't much more than offset the fees.

[dead0man]

I think that's one and half steps too complicated for me to answer.  (in my defense, I've been awake a long time and have walked a lot today.  To celebrate our anniversary me and <Borat>My Wife</Borat> went to a bonsai exhibit downtown today....of course it's the weekend when all the rich Berkshire Hathaway investors are in town so downtown was full of rich, entitled tourists.  Our exit was the same one for the zoo, so it was just nuts (and that part of the highway is under construction ).  We got to the fancy garden place every city has where the exhibit was 20 minutes after opening and there were already 200 cars in the parking lot.  It just went on like that.)

[Bacon King]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades. The proponents of so-called "right to work" laws are fundamentally dishonest in their claims.

So what's the issue conservatives have, you may ask. It's not union dues - it's "fair share fees". It covers ONLY the cost of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures" -- the things every single worker benefits from. Usually "fair share fees" are only about 25% of standard union dues. So you're only required to pay for the benefits you get on behalf of the union. None of your money goes to political donations, lobbying, or any union organizing efforts. None of your paycheck is spent on any of those things, and nobody can force you to do otherwise unless you explicitly agree to pay full union dues.

[courts]

exactly.i've gotten tired of explaining this.literally the same talking points from 70 something years ago.tiring.get some new material

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades. The proponents of so-called "right to work" laws are fundamentally dishonest in their claims.

So what's the issue conservatives have, you may ask. It's not union dues - it's "fair share fees". It covers ONLY the cost of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures" -- the things every single worker benefits from. Usually "fair share fees" are only about 25% of standard union dues. So you're only required to pay for the benefits you get on behalf of the union. None of your money goes to political donations, lobbying, or any union organizing efforts. None of your paycheck is spent on any of those things, and nobody can force you to do otherwise unless you explicitly agree to pay full union dues.

That ignores that money is fungible.  It is just like how the fact that the Hyde Amendment prevents direct public funding of abortion does not mean that Planned Parenthood cannot use its money from the government on projects that would have needed to be done anyway, freeing up extra money for abortion.  In this case, the administrative costs would exist anyway, and, even if the money from dues does not go directly to political contributions, it gets there indirectly, as it frees up other money to go to political contributions, usually for left-wing candidates and policies.  In this way, I believe that not having right to work laws is a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades. The proponents of so-called "right to work" laws are fundamentally dishonest in their claims.

So what's the issue conservatives have, you may ask. It's not union dues - it's "fair share fees". It covers ONLY the cost of "collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance procedures" -- the things every single worker benefits from. Usually "fair share fees" are only about 25% of standard union dues. So you're only required to pay for the benefits you get on behalf of the union. None of your money goes to political donations, lobbying, or any union organizing efforts. None of your paycheck is spent on any of those things, and nobody can force you to do otherwise unless you explicitly agree to pay full union dues.

     I have been in unionized positions, and the unions were clear that they took the same amount out whether you joined or not (I guess they could be lying; I no longer have the paystubs to verify what actually happened). They did offer "benefits" to entice people to join, but they were so grossly incompetent (at least when they weren't being outright malicious) that the dues were basically just money flushed down the drain. Not like they had much impetus to improve anyway, since they get your money no matter what.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades.

Not quite.  SCOTUS has never ruled in the post-Lockner era that the closed shop or the related union shop is unconstitutional.  What is has ruled is that Taft-Hartley makes them illegal in the U.S. Under current SCOTUS case law, if Congress were to repeal Taft-Hartley and reinstate Wagner, then the closed shop would be legal.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What's wrong with being forced to join a church or a political party or the NRA?

[Vincent]

What is "force"?

Taking a job in a non-rtw state means a person can be required to pay union fees as a condition of employment.

You can be "forced" to sign a non compete agreement as a condition of employment. In some cases, even when the job is low wage and involves little company training, is this "force" or a "voluntary contract".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/27/noncompete-clauses-jobs-workplace/348384001/

[dead0man]

If you have to pay (using whatever word for it you want) someone to do a job somewhere, the people taking your money are almost always assholes (there might be exceptions) more into helping themselves and possibly, on accident, helping the people that have already been doing that job for awhile and paying them the entire time.  They certainly ain't doing it for the good of their industry of for the good of the country/consumer/customer/random citizen.

[Bacon King]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades.

Not quite.  SCOTUS has never ruled in the post-Lockner era that the closed shop or the related union shop is unconstitutional.  What is has ruled is that Taft-Hartley makes them illegal in the U.S. Under current SCOTUS case law, if Congress were to repeal Taft-Hartley and reinstate Wagner, then the closed shop would be legal.

I know I'm a few days late in replying but I just wanted to say thanks, I appreciate the clarification, it's been a few years since I've had to look at labor law (even if it is a bit of a moot point since I don't think Congress will be reinstating the Wagner Act any time soon )

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's clarify for a moment here what we're actually talking about. Nobody in the United States is forced to join a union to have a specific job: courts decided a long time ago that a "closed shop" is unconstitutional and has been illegal for decades.

Not quite.  SCOTUS has never ruled in the post-Lockner era that the closed shop or the related union shop is unconstitutional.  What is has ruled is that Taft-Hartley makes them illegal in the U.S. Under current SCOTUS case law, if Congress were to repeal Taft-Hartley and reinstate Wagner, then the closed shop would be legal.

I know I'm a few days late in replying but I just wanted to say thanks, I appreciate the clarification, it's been a few years since I've had to look at labor law (even if it is a bit of a moot point since I don't think Congress will be reinstating the Wagner Act any time soon )

Certainly not this Congress. But with the increased polarization in politics, it's not unthinkable that with the next Democratic trifecta that modifications to Taft-Hartley could occur to strengthen the ability of laborers to freely associate.