But that is the market, is it not? If your employer chooses to require all employees to negotiate as a unit, and is not required to do so by law, aren't they just doing that because they're a rational actor in the market?
The law is a different question, yes, but the fundamental motivation is to prevent 80% of the company from negotiating, say, "We all get 1-hour lunch breaks" and the remaining 20% from benefiting from the negotiation because that's the rational thing for the company to do in that situation, thereby providing an incentive for people to remove themselves from the "agreement" and coast on it nonetheless. What would you do to solve this problem in other ways?
But, unionization is not something an employer really has a choice in currently. If people vote to form a union, the employer must deal with the union representation (to my understanding).
What I'm saying is that an employer should be free to fire any employee (including for the explicit reason that they are a union member) and a group of employees should be able to strike and bargain as a unit if they like. But the union members shouldn't be able to force a non-member to strike or bargain with them.
Edit: and the non-member employee shouldn't get any of the pay rates, benefits, or work rules that the union negotiates for it's members.
How does this work, though? Take the lunch-break example - it is economically irrational for a company that is giving a 1-hour lunch break to the vast majority of its employees to require a couple of employees to work through lunch, when you have no guarantee that you'll have a complete set of workers. It's easier to just put a "Closed for lunch" sign out front.
Or take health insurance, which is purchased in bulk. You can't give the vast majority of employees a better plan and keep the rest on the old plan. The old plan no longer is available to you with those enrollment numbers. You can either put them on a more expensive plan that resembles their old plan, or on the new plan, or on no plan at all.
And that's leaving aside the fact that the negotiating parameters change. If I want a 1-hour lunch break and none of my coworkers have it, that negotiation is hard. If I want a 1-hour lunch break and all of my coworkers have it, that's an entirely different conversation. If I want a better health plan than any of the ones my company offers, that's a huge uphill battle. If I want a better health plan than I'm on that all my coworkers are already on, I can probably just have that for the asking.
There is just no way that you can require that the non-members are not allowed to benefit from the union negotiations. It doesn't work like that.
For health care, there exists individual plans. So, the employer can choose to offer that to non-members if they think it's worth it. The employer could also have a standard non-union benefit package if the company had enough non-union employees. Or, it could choose not to offer health insurance (or any other benefit it offered to the union).
I don't agree that seeing your union colleagues get a benefit means that an individual negotiator be more likely to get a benefit. This knowledge does reveal that the employer is willing to give that benefit to the union. But, the union has the weight of it's members to extract that benefit. The non-member has only their individual contribution. So it depends on the individual's value to the business versus the union members' value.
I suspect that there would still be a strong incentive to bargain collectively in jobs where an employee is easily replaced. These workers would see that they can get better compensation by banding together than going it alone.
Meanwhile, it would basically not be feasible to unionize in areas where there is a significant difference in the productivity of individual employees. Most programming falls into this category in my opinion.
More broadly, I think you've kinda missed my position a bit. I'm thinking about freedom of association as a negative right (as in "government can't force you to {x}"). So, if that right was interpreted the way I would like it to be, it doesn't really matter what the actual outcome is. It shouldn't be legal to force a non-member to associate with a union (unless the employer chooses to contract exclusively with that union).
Obviously, you're arguing that my interpretation is not desirable b/c it would cause a free-rider problem (which I don't think is as strong of a possibility as you do).
If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer.
Well you can't really 'opt out' of the benefits of their negotiation in that way, and for the same reason you can't opt out of the union. You're not talking about a future with some unions where people can also choose to go it alone, you're talking about a future with no unions at all. At least be honest about that.
People should be free to voluntarily associate with groups that represent them and their interests.
Except collective bargaining won't exist without that law.
You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them.
> You realise that unions are something imposed on employers, right? They don't like them.
and a common first thing for the union to do is to force the employer to only hire union workers.
No, closed shops are illegal, but union shops aren't. An employer can no longer agree only to hire people who are already members of a union (that's a closed shop, which used to be legal), but they can force you to join a union after you are hired. If that's the case, if the union terminates your membership, the employer is forced to terminate your employment as well.
(Ironically, the union can force you to pay dues even if you're not a member, but that's a separate matter.)
If an employer chooses to require it's employees be members of a union, I think that's their right. But, I dislike (and think should not be legal) a group voting to unionize and then forcing their agreement onto other employees that don't want to be represented.
To my current understanding, there are 2 stumbling blocks to that way of doing things. 1) Employees can force an employer to deal with a union and 2) the union must cover everyone in the bargaining unit.
In my opinion, ideally both of those things would stop. A union can operate and negotiate on behalf of it's members. The union contract wouldn't cover non-members. And an employer can choose not to hire union workers.
So you're cool with unions enforced by dictators but not unions enforced by democracy?
First: Profit seeking organizations don't care about skill they care: about wait for it... profit which is the money you add vs the money you cost, which may be completely divorced from skill.
Second: Literally nobody can accurately measure a specific individuals contribution, through skill or otherwise.
I also believe that forced collective bargaining is unconstitutional, because it requires people to associate with a group that they don't want to associate with.
If a group of people wish to collectively bargain with their employer, that's wonderful. But, they can leave me out of it, and I can do without whatever pay schedule and benefits they manage to extract from the employer.
IMO the real issue with current law is that collective bargaining agreements must apply to all employees in a bargaining unit.