It doesn't sounds like they want any of those so-called benefits. As explained below, the data suggests that if members could feasibly decertify or deauthorize their unions entirely, they would.
Remember that, nationwide, only 7% of union members ever cast a vote in favor of their union. That means less than 7% voted against it, and the remainder never had an opportunity to vote at all.
It's not surprising that, in the absence of a safe way to decertify or deauthorize, some portion of the 86+% who never had the opportunity to vote supports laws that give them the next-best thing. (It's not just right-to-work laws, by the way, though that's the most frequently discussed at the national scale and therefore the most frequently polled).
I mean, most employer policies never get any kind of vote from any subset of the employees, so I'm not sure why I should be so outraged about this one in particular when it seems to be usually to workers' benefit.
Clearly they don't think it's to their benefit, or else they wouldn't be trying to decertify or deauthorize it.
They are, just not directly, because the direct process for decertification or deauthorization is both highly risky (if caught, they could lose their jobs), and also pretty ineffective (the NLRB has a habit of overturning election results, rendering the whole process moot.
So, they use other tactics - hence the increasing support from union members for anti-union lawmakers. Political pundits often write about this as a "paradox" of union members voting "against their own interests", but it's actually pretty straightforward once you remember that union members are individuals who may or may not actually support the interests of the union that they belong to.
But that doesn't mean right to work laws shouldn't exist. Maybe it just means unions shouldn't exist.
I mean, if your entire business model is flawed, should the world change around your business model?
This is more of a devil's advocate position, as I'm not particularly anti-union, but I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one.
I refuse to say that unions have no place in the world, or have no place in certain industries, or didn't have a place in the past. I'm rather neutral on a lot of it, but the fact is the problem is inherent in the union itself.
Unions go a little deep than the concept of "business model"
"[..] I personally have zero desire to work in a union or be forced to be in one."
I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions.
"unions [..] have a place in the past"
That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?
Because the laws of capitalism tell us that if any profit or benefit goes to the worker is because there is no way around it. Sometimes is a good idea look back to history. For instance the eight hour working day:
" In 1919 in Barcelona, Catalonia, after a 44-day general strike with over 100,000 participants had effectively crippled the Catalan economy, the Government settled the strike by granting all the striking workers demands that included an eight-hour day, union recognition, and the rehiring of fired workers."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)
Sometimes I think that we are all "free riders" on the fights of the past.
I'm going to speculate that's only because you have good working conditions."
I have noticed (personal anecdote here so yeah not great) that a large majority of people that I know against unions have never worked in dangerous fields, office workers are ridiculously ignorant as to the workplace dangers of many unionised industries.
> That's a common opinion. What have changed from the past?
Reminds me of a quote I recently came across by Danish communist and activist Carl Scharnberg, roughly translated as:
"The teacher told his pupils that the class struggle is over! A pupil asks: Who won?"
However, your reply is structured around trying to convince me that I should be pro-union rather than ambivalent, and does not address the issue at hand; how to square "right to work" laws and the free rider problem with unions.
Like, employers can require you to do all kinds of things in a contract: wear certain types of clothes, tell you when and where to show up for work, how much you're paid, etc. We regulate some things like health and safety codes because the regulations themselves are clearly in the best interest of the workforce, but who do right-to-work laws ultimately serve?
That's not true.
Actually... yes. Maintenance-of-dues and other contract stipulations can mean that all members of a bargaining unit are required to pay dues fees, even if they aren't members of the union or covered by the union contracts. So, they're required to pay fees to the union so that the union can represent other people, not them, oftentimes against their own interests.
It's particularly common for teachers and other skilled, low-paying jobs.
Right-to-work laws are like prop 13 in California: sounds good on the surface, but hidden terrible impact.
On the surface, "I should be able to choose whether or not I join a union" makes sense, Americans love freedom and choice. But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees. And like most instances of the freeloader problem, the result is the responsible entity getting starved, as everyone wants the others to be the ones paying for the benefits.