If I were to try to guess, it's that it forces political cooperation on people under threat of not having a job.
Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is a union shop (you have to join the union and pay dues if you work) - and every single union is wildly pro-gun, supporting candidates who want everyone to carry two guns (but they'll compromise to only men and only one if pushed).
So to live and work, your money has to go to support that. If you were anti-gun, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.
I get your point, but that's specifically compulsory union membership (which I agree is undesirable). It's a huge leap from that to "unions should be illegal".
Side note - where I am (Australia) compulsory union membership is illegal.
At its core a trade union is an organisation that represents workers interests, and that formally negotiates on behalf of its members. To say that unions should be illegal is to say that workers should be banned from collectively negotiating via formal organisations, which seems a tad extreme.
The argument is understandable - if you're not forced to join the union and pay for it, then everyone will just not join and let the union still negotiate on their behalf; and it'll have no money to operate and fall apart.
However, I'm sure there would be other ways (for example, if the union is negotiating with the company, the company can just pay for the union, it does indirectly through salary anyway).
Yeah for sure - I can see why compulsory unionism is a thing for historical reasons and understand the argument for maintaining it but fundamentally disagree on principle (freedom of political association etc.).
Voluntary membership is a hard problem for unions, and in Australia declining union membership is a big thing outside of industries like construction that still have unionism as a core part of the working culture. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see the benefits they gain from union membership when most of the basic working rights that unions have won are taken for granted, and a lot of the bargaining and political lobbying work they do is somewhat abstract.
It always seems strange to me how much anti-union sentiment there seems to be in the US though. Not to say that Australia is perfect by any means but labour conditions in the US seem pretty insane as an outsider.
I feel (especially in construction) that unions missed a chance to become a "guarantee of quality" - basically, certify that their members perform to a baseline, and if you have an issue with work they did, the union (or the company) will make it right. Basically self-policing.
If you aren’t in the union you should have to negotiate your own contract. I don’t see why you would get the fruits of the union’s labor if you aren’t a part of it.
That way if the union does a good job, workers will join, and if it does a bad job they won’t.
I live in a country (Romania) with almost no legal guns, so I am missing some context. I thought that with the USA constitution guns are a right that "shall not be infringed", so what exactly "anti-gun" means: changing the constitution or ignoring it? Most of the news I see, people are trying to ignore it, which is basically ignoring the laws. In this case, Amazon breaking some laws seems to fit well in the picture.
It's an attempt to pick an example that "works" - most people on HN will not be sad that the union supports a political party, because it's the party they also support.
Imagine the situation where every single company in your state is underpaying its employees, exploiting
workforce in third world countries, polluting the environment, externalizing costs, laying off exclusively to improve short term profits for shareholders, etc and they lobby governments to keep it that way.
So to live and work, your labor has to go to support that. If you were anti-capitalist, you'd probably feel a bit annoyed.
