That’s pretty ambitious when the employees are Googlers.
>> When I was part of a union it amounted to 2 hours of wages per month, not exactly onerous. reply
>> elefanten 2 hours ago [–]
>> Counterexample: the nascent Google employees union is taking 1% of total comp.
Not sure it's really a counterexample as there are - in theory - about 200 work hours per month, so 1% of comp is pretty much equivalent to 2 hours of wages per month.
It's a bigger problem in non Right to Work states, where you can be forced to join the union (and have dues taken from you).
In places where joining the union for their benefits is voluntary I don't see the problem.
There are also places where you don't have to join the union, but they still take some of the wages (at a lower rate than full members) for nebulous "benefits" the union offers. Those are especially contentious because not all the employee believe they get any benefits at all.
The US should shift to the European model where multiple unions are available at each employer, and they compete with each other for membership. I believe joining a union is required there, they don't have any non-union jobs, but a European union is not the same as a US one.
Google: "closed shop vs union shop" and you will see.
Basically you cannot have a business that only hires from a union, but you can have a business that requires you to join a union after being hired meaning the union cannot prevent you from joining them.
Or in other words in non-right-to-work states you can be forced to join a union.
I mean, yeah, you owe dues. How else should it work? When I was part of a union it amounted to 2 hours of wages per month, not exactly onerous.