One possible response to that question: Why is it ethical or fair force a worker to pay union dues as part of a job?
In that case I'd argue that because the union's negotiation affects all employees (it at least sets a baseline) it is ethical and fair to ask every employee to contribute. Allowing every employee to opt out greatly reduces the amount of resources the union has available to reach its aims.
I'm assuming a few things here:
- That the negotiation performed by the union does affect all workers in the job, whether union members or not.
- That collective bargaining enabled by unions can in many cases be a positive thing for workers because it helps fix an information asymmetry that exists between employers and workers. (Such asymmetries break the assumptions of ideal free markets, which indeed are a good thing.)
- That right-to-work laws do indeed adversely affect the resources of a union. (The data shows that public sector union membership greatly dropped after Wisconsin's public sector right-to-work act passed: https://projects.jsonline.com/news/2016/11/27/for-unions-in-... . As an aside: I'm not the biggest fan of public sector unions, but I think it's likely private sector right-to-work laws would have a similar effect.)
I've participated in debates like this previously on HN without a satisfying response, so I'd ask the following for a response:
Which specific parts of my response/assumptions do you disagree with, and why?
Because unions mostly benefit low performers and old/senior people.
I don't want to have an organization making contracts that will hold me back just because of age. If I can demonstrate that I can perform/negotiate, then I should be able to command what benefits/salary that I am able to negotiate in the market, as opposed to be in the 1 sized fits all contract that someone else negotiated.