It is claimed that non-unionized employees of a company reap the benefits of collective bargaining by the unionized employees, which is why there should be “mandatory dues” even if unionization isn’t mandatory. This seems odd. What legal or contractual requirements force the employer to give the same benefits to the non-union memebers?
Well, the theory is that if unionized employees achieve some increase, wages go up for everyone. So non-unionized workers would free-ride on expense of unionized workers. It’s wrong though because unions don’t create benefits for workers, they actually lower wages. Wages are a function of productivity.
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Opponents argue right-to-work laws create a free-rider problem, in which non-union employees (who are bound by the terms of the union contract even though they are not members of the union) benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues.
So, would that imply that somehow collective bargaining must apply to all employees? Maybe only in certain states? Or are the unions making the contract for all employees so that they can force dues to be paid?
The book “Economics in One lesson”, available for free in this website, has a whole chapter on the damages that unions do to workers, check it out. Hazlitt’s arguments are crystal clear.
I’ve actually read it. I guess I’ll have to go back and review.
I understand how unions do not increase wages, but I’m a little confused about what the protesters mean when they say their collective bargaining rights are being taken away. What “rights” would they be losing in the new bill? Is this video accurate?
Unions are just lying and confusing people to get more of your money. Every time you try to cut back their special privileges they pretend it’s the big evil robber barons eliminating the workers “rights” to collective bargaining.
I’ve always thought there’s nothing inherently wrong with a union in the private workplace. The problem is when the union tries to use the force of government to get their way. For example a private business should be legally allowed to fire any worker that tries to unionize (or any worker for that matter).
This argument is specious at best. It’s also morally wrong.
Imagine living in an apartment building. Then a criminal gang moves in. The gang threatens the owners and managers of the apartment and uses influence to have laws passed in their favor. As a result of these crimes, the apartment grounds are improved – maybe some new tennis courts, a pool, etc.
Now, the gang comes to you and says they want you to pay them an ongoing fee, because they’ve made life better for you.
No, they haven’t made your life better. They’ve made it worse, by surrounding you with things they obtained by various forms of criminal extortion – for which you will eventually have to suffer the consequences (as will they).