I think this is the main reason why I just "don't get" unions. Why do we have to put a name to it? Trying to understand unions, I guess it provides some sort of legitimacy to the organization. Or perhaps unions are more efficient at bargaining multiple issues simultaneously. I guess I am just really hung up on paying a union money.
To set up a communications and decision-making structure.
> hung up on paying a union money.
Agreed.
Am open to unions, but their worst tendencies such as significant monetary collection and (everyday) work obstruction should be against the rules. Just as anti-employee corporate policy should as well.
I know someone who's in a union as a mechanic. Her union dues are $50 and she gets fantastic benefits, that more than pay for the union dues.
Plus many countries have laws surrounding how unions can operate and protections for employees organising them. In a less enlightened society employers will just lay off anyone attempting to organise.
So in general Unions are typically formed explicitly because people have lots of existing evidence of the benefits.
Back on topic, I think unions are like anything else; if they are not well managed/maintained, they can become top heavy and easily corrupted. The key (much like any other organization) is consistent involvement from membership to keep the top honest... and move leaders along that don't have the organization's best interest at the forefront.
While unionization is the formalized structure of collective bargaining, there is nothing keeping these individuals away from collective bargaining without forming an official union to do so.