Why am I forced to join the union?

[Godwynn]

I got a job at Kroger, and before they hired me, they told me I was forced to join the union. I have a strong dislike for unions, but I needed a job, so I signed on the dotted line. My manager made me sign a paper saying I'll have a 2 month probationary period before I am allowed to enter the union.

So Thursday was payday, and on it, next to my taxes are my union fees and dues. The union took out $25.00, while I only took home $21.36. Someone please justify how the union is supposed to help me, when they are going to force me to borrow money from my parents to pay for my gas. Why am I forced to join the union? Shouldn't I have a choice?

 

[Rhymes]

This is a big issue that I'm fighting in Quebec. Unions aren't what they used to be and in most cases I think their purposes are corrupted.
I personally think you should have the choice....

 

[Mise]

I guess it's for the same reason that waitresses have to wear make-up and a skirt, and that company in .... somewheresville, USA was allowed to fire people for smoking (in their own time).

The government should intervene where the union abuses its power in the same way that it should intervene when a company abuses its power.

 

[WillJ]

Well, a libertarian started a thread about unions, so I suppose this is a good place to ask a question I've been wondering about:

How exactly do unions conflict with libertarian ideology? How do unions "force" anyone into anything? They obviously do not when all decisions are agreed upon by all union members. But even with this isn't the case, everything works in line with the principle of consent. Perhaps a union reaches an agreement with the employer that applies to everyone working for the company (like in Godwynn's case). Considering no one is forced to work for the company, and this is really no different than the employer having his own policies (like what Mise said), how can this be out of line with libertarianism?

Now, sometimes unions use political power to have laws enacted that apply to everyone, but that's another matter.

 

[newfangle]

Bleh. I really have no pihlosophical objections to unions, since someone still has a choice whether or not to get a job under the juristiction of a union.

But damn, in this day and age they are pretty much useless, corrupt, bloated organizations who do nothing but encourage mediocrity.

 

[Rhymes]

I dont know much about libertarian ideas, but I know enough about unions to know that decisions aren't agreed by all members and that most of the time the decisions comes down to 1 or 2 individual.
Most of the time, employees are forced to contribute and dont have much to say about the decisions taken by the union.

Some of them ares still good, but most of the big unions are imo the modern day MOB.

 

[ummmm........]

Well, there are three types of unions, the names of which escape me.

First you got the union where anyone can work there, joining the union or not. I think this type is pretty much unobjectionable to everyone, but it is also pretty powerless.

Next you've got the type that Godwynn describes, where the company can hire anyone it wants, but they must join the union before they start work. This is probably the most common type. The only problem is that it restricts your right to work. If all of the jobs available to Godwynn have this type of union, then he cannot work without joining a union, which means he cannot sell his labor in an open market, which is bad. Is it worse than having no unions or only the type of union described above? Probably not, but it is certainly open for debate.

Finally, there is what I think is called the "closed shop" union type. This is the sort where a company can only hire from the pool of union employees. So instead of getting hired and having to join the union, you've got to join the union before you can be hired. A subtle linguistic difference perhaps, but it shifts all of the power to the union, making them more powerful even than the company itself. I think this type is a little less defensible, but I'm sure some folks think it's great.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Can't you just tell the union to go stuff it to itself? Or is the union in itself controlling the company, meaning: if the company hires people who would not join up there'd be strikes and/or other nasty things.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

In your case the Union probably set up a contract such that no one can work at the store except Union employees. In theory, they do this because they negotiated for the better pay, so everyone getting that better pay must be in the Union. In theory, the union dues should be far less than the extra pay and benefits. Obviously the modern corrupt union in your location doesn't subscribe to that theory.

I remember working at an IGA as a teen. We were the highest paid grocery store workers within an hour+ drive. This was because our owner had low prices, hence high volume, hence generated more income to share with the work force. Our full time employees had the best medical coverage also. We weren't unionize and laughed at all the union guys who tried to convince us we would be better off if we unionized.

Union certainly had a purpose and some of them are still useful now. For example one of the teachers union will provide free legal support to any teacher that gets sued. Considering the number of bogus lawsuits nowadays that can be important and worth the investment. However, many unions now are corrupt and do nothing but hinder their members and the companies they work for.

 

[ummmm........]

Double post.

 

[Rhymes]

I'm sure it's part of the labor agreement that the company will not hire non-union employees.

each company has its own agreement, some do, some dont......

Edit: whats double post?

 

[ummmm........]

Sorry. A'AbarachAmadan made the same point I did at the same time, and he made it better, so I deleted my post. So I guess I meant cross post. So many terms to keep straight.

Since Godwynn said he had to join the union in order to be hired, I'm assuming his is the second type of union of those described in post 7. Could be wrong.

 

[WillJ]

@newfangle and others: Yep, I'm aware that unions can get very annoying (especially ones in the public sector). But I was thinking that most libertarians somehow philosophically objected to them. Maybe I was wrong.

Finally, there is what I think is called the "closed shop" union type. This is the sort where a company can only hire from the pool of union employees. So instead of getting hired and having to join the union, you've got to join the union before you can be hired. A subtle linguistic difference perhaps, but it shifts all of the power to the union, making them more powerful even than the company itself. I think this type is a little less defensible, but I'm sure some folks think it's great.

I don't see how those unions would be more powerful than the second type of union you mentioned. It does indeed seem only like a subtle linguistic difference.

 

[luiz]

Unions are mafias. Some of them even use physical violence to shut their enemies up(common over here).

Unions should be purely voluntary. Unfortunately in many places, like my country, the government grants then monopolistic powers.
Personally I want the leaders of the two major brazilian unions to die a horrible death. Their manners would make Al Capone shy.

 

[joacqin]

Unions are nescessary in any capitalistic society, they are the only way to assure some basic rights and reasonable wages. I read that the minimum wage in Idaho or some other state was just over $4 an hour, no one can live on that but some people will be forced to work two or three jobs which pay 4$ an hour if they do not unionize. This said unions tend to be easily corrupted one way or the other, and they all too often end up like any other corporate organisation, trying to make it nice for the people on top and only paying lip service to the people on the bottom. Sweden has very strong unions in all sectors with standardized wages in most branches which are more or less automatized. The drawback is that the union leaders nowadays seems to identify more with the top political and economical brass than the workers they are supposed to represent. Most unions also have ties to the social democratic party without the members having much say in it (this is bad even if I reckon a quite large majority of union members vote for said party). It feels somewhat like an unholy alliance. I have heard enough horror stories from the US though about worker's rights to strongly support the idea of labour unions.

Despite these very strong unions they are all to my knowledge always completely voluntarily, the unions even struggle to cover non members in their standardized wage deals and similar. If you are not a member though you do not get unemployment pay from the union and they might not stand up for you if you happen to come into conflict with your employer. When it comes to craftsmen I think union membership serves kinda like a seal of approval that the person in question are a true craftsman and knows his work so companies tend to only hire union members. This last part is mostly speculation from my part though.

 

[ummmm........]

I don't see how those unions would be more powerful than the second type of union you mentioned. It does indeed seem only like a subtle linguistic difference.

Okay, in union type B, a company chooses its employees from the labor force and before those employees are hired, they must join the union. However, the union must accept everyone the company hires into its ranks.

In union type C, a union chooses its members, and then a company chooses its employees from amongst the unemployed in the union.

It may be easier to see if you look at it from the employee's perspective: In type B, you go to the company for a job; in type C, you go to the union.

 

[WillJ]

Okay, in union type B, a company chooses its employees from the labor force and before those employees are hired, they must join the union. However, the union must accept everyone the company hires into its ranks.

In union type C, a union chooses its members, and then a company chooses its employees from amongst the unemployed in the union.

It may be easier to see if you look at it from the employee's perspective: In type B, you go to the company for a job; in type C, you go to the union.

Ahhhhhhh, I see.

 

[superisis]

There are powerful/corrupt unions who only hurt the companies/economy and not the union workers. An example:

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILWU

though it doesn't say much about it. It basically sure that about 10,000 semiskilled workers get paid more than $100,000 a year, for relatively easy work.

 

[Hakim]

I found the mandatory union membership quite strange, especially that US of all countries have it

How exactly do unions conflict with libertarian ideology?

Don't know if it does, but unions are in effect an cartel. It's as if several competing companies divided the market between them and decided to have a common price. This in itself damages a free market system (to be weighed against possible benefits, some perhaps being economical). Furthermore, a strike is perhaps a breach of contract.

 

[Hakim]

If you are not a member though you do not get unemployment pay from the union

I think you do, or rather: the unemployment pay is not paid by the union, they just administer the system. You can leave the union and still get the benefit if you are fired, something I've been considering to do.

One way to make unions strong without mandatory membership is to make basic and obvious rights negotiable. Everyone will quickly run into the laps of the union. If I were a PM with the aim of destroying the unions I would make law of the most obvious rights, leaving the union to negotiate about pitiful things.

I dislike the way union membership fees are used to support the social democrats in Sweden (they don't even support the competing ex-commie party). However, I also think companies supporting parties are somewhat perverted (companies are "animals" in the market "djungle" and should not have opinons about political stuff) so these two errors somewhat neutralizes each other.