> Seems no worse than an employer doing the same, directly or via interest groups.

Well, in one scenario it's their money being spent. In the other, it's yours. You don't draw a pretty clear distinction there?

You get upset that tenants are subsidizing a landlord's political spending without a say? Any time you give money to anyone else for any purpose, for that matter? And "their money" comes from your labor (plus their capital, in some share, yes) as surely as "your money" does. This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be, and may not be relevant anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States

I've been known to boycott companies for political actions I don't like. It is much easier to boycott when there is an option down the street that is otherwise equal.

Switching jobs is harder: could you be working for a different company tomorrow, or would it take a few weeks to figure out. Switching unions is often impossible: the same union often covers everyone with the same skills.

> This is a way less clear-cut distinction than you're making it out to be

It really isn't. I think we can all make arguments as to why we're justified in taking from others, but that doesn't change the reality of what is happening.

> may not be relevant anyway:

AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.

> AFAIK this means only public sector non-union employees cannot be forced to pay for unions' political activities. Private sector employees are still on the hook. Unless there's something else you're trying to draw attention to.

I'll pick out the part I think's most relevant, since yeah, that's a big ol' wall of text.

"Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, and held by the Supreme Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck that in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative known as agency fees.[12]"

Collect fees? Yes. Spend those fees on political activities, if you're a non-member? No. Unless I'm misreading this. The public unions bit comes next and says that public sector unions can't even collect the agency fees from non-union members, which is a step farther and into union-busting territory. The original point was that union fees amount to compelled political speech, though (again, so does your company spending on politics, assuming they're making money off you even in an abstract way, but whatever) and this seems to make that moot, best I can tell. If that's wrong I'd like to know—I don't get off on going around spreading incorrect info.

The managers of the corporation are not spending their money either, unless they own the corporation.

They're voluntarily authorized by the controlling interest of the people whose money it is.

In many cases the controlling interests are index and pension funds. Members of these funds do not get a say in political donations. Corporations are people spending other people's money with little consequence all the way down.

It is your money being spent, in both cases. Labor is entitled to all it creates.

> Quit. Hope your skills are marketable.

What do I do when there is an industry-wide closed-shop union, as some people seem to want?

What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies.

As for closed shop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States

It's illegal, so's the similar "union shop", and you can opt out such that you still pay dues but they may only go toward collective bargaining activities and services to members, which appears to solve this "I'm being forced to support the only viable political party that wants to make anything whatsoever better" problem. Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue. Unlike employers. I can't sign a piece of paper banning them from using profit derived from my labor for political activity.

> What do you do when all the best-paying companies in your industry lobby for things you don't like, leaving you few, poor, options for employment? If we must solve this problem for unions, it's surely at least as important to solve it for companies.

But the thousands of companies I could work for have healthy competition and diversity of approach to issues. An industry-wide union has no competition and no diversity.

> Maybe leaving others, sure, but this issue's... not an issue.

Say you were a Green supporter, and had a strong conviction against military intervention. How would you feel funding a union leadership that campaigns for Labour, following Iraq?

Kickstarter's in the US, no? Did you check out that WP link? I don't mean this as a "did you even read the article" jab, but you mention Labour, but this is about the US and the laws in the US mandate that those working under union labor agreements may be required to pay dues, yes, but may also be allowed to (effectively) specify that their funds may not go toward (most forms of) political spending, but only bargaining and member services.

Money is fungible; every dollar they get from you for bargaining and services, is a dollar they don't have to spend from other members, and can allocate to political lobbying.

> "I'm being forced to support the only viable political party that wants to make anything whatsoever better"

Wow, I can tell you evaluate statements in an unbiased manner. What happens when you realize the idea of "better" turns out to depend on some pretty big assumptions that you no longer believe are true? Additionally, if the only two "viable" political parties are abhorrent like the ones in the US, giving any money to either of them is still morally fucked up if you truly disagree with them and vote 3rd party.

Wasn't trying to be unbiased there and it's not especially relevant to the broader point—I just find the "I want to be free to keep punching myself in the face!" POV funny and couldn't resist a poke. As for evaluating statements, I evaluate everything with bias, of course. FWIW I'm pretty much single-issue on fixing our healthcare system until that's done, and only one viable party's even sort-of trying to do that. Anyway, the post that started this thread was written by one "mises" so I'm not worried about ruffling feathers—that was inevitable.

At any rate, the two-party thing's how our (the US's) system's structured. It stabilizes there. A third party replacing one of the big two, as has happened occasionally in the past, would assuredly acquire a good bit of distasteful cruft along the way. Effective political action revolves around trying to help a 3rd party replace one of them despite that likely outcome (and accepting an even smaller voice in policy than most voters have, in the meantime); participation in one of the big two parties themselves (much, much large effect than just voting in elections, though still usually tiny); or working to reform our system to break the two-party stability point. Or some combination of those things.

In European countries where this is the model there are often several competing unions with different political affiliations.

So let's say the far-left carpenters union is the one to successfully negotiate with an employer. I belong to a centrist union. Now what? Do I go against my political and personal beliefs or do I suffer because of them?

This is exactly the problem. Many of the unions I mentioned above are such ones, where in many places, you must be a member if you work in an industry. They are less unions and more guilds. Let's say you are a carpenter, a skilled trade you have likely spent a large number of years learning. It's quite hard to leave the union, because you will be forced to move to a different profession. This obviously isn't right. Unions can serve a purpose for collective bargaining; I think most agree on that. But they don't need to support political parties.

It seems that some unions have shifted from representing employees in negotiations to representing a profession in all respects. I believe that's contrary to their original purpose and dilutes both their support and their credibility as simply advocating for the worker.

Much worse. They collect dues, which ostensibly are to support what's going on where you work, and then just funnel it to politicians. So, it's your money going to political campaigns. If a company owner or corp funds a campaign, at least they're doing it with their own money.

Corporations aren't people. They don't have "their own money". They have the money their employees generated. I spend 40 hours a week working for someone to create value greater than my salary. They then use this money for all sorts of things (shareholder payouts, acquisitions, political activities). T