Part of the reason the US has so many onerous labor laws is not necessarily from anti-labor sentiment (though it didn't hurt), but part of anti-crime efforts to fight the mafia in the 50s and 60s.
"Sign this agreement with the Teamsters, or else your parts will sit at the dock and your customer deliveries will sit in a warehouse" was a very real and common tactic. So the US passed a bunch of laws against sympathy strikes.
Obviously the mafia is no longer a bit issue in the economy, but the laws are still on the books, and people in the US still feel uneasy about general strikes.
I can't help but wondering if this is merely an ostensible reasoning. Do you happen to have more information about the "anti-mafia" struggle?
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/labor-ra...
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-vcrs/infiltrated-l...
There's also a great interview with former mob boss Michael Franzese where he talked directly about how it worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27p-USEQxe4
I guess I had the dates wrong. Nothing was done about labor racketeering until Jimmy Hoffa was murdered. And there are still active RICO cases to this day.
In exchange the unions get to collect their fees on the salaries of their members, which is used for political influence and funneled to political parties.
This is not the case in Sweden.
Maybe in the US?
Anyway, here's the link: https://www.sjofolk.se/nyheter/2022/medlem-automatiskt/
Now you have the truth right in front of you. Use a translator if you don't understand it.
I'd like for you to apologize for slandering me here in the comments and repeatedly calling me a liar. Will you do that, or will you just down vote and move on, like a hacker?
It's just the difference between opt-in and opt-out and you can simply opt-out and anybody that is subject to these arrangements is aware of them. But then you also don't benefit from the union in times of strikes and such. With the very high fraction of employers that sign up for these programs it's pretty common to automatically enroll them in the union for that segment and usually - but probably not always - the HR department will ask you when they onboard you if you want to join the union or not.
Edit: Apologies for confusing you with the other poster.
Nobody has corrected me, it is a fact that some large employers in Sweden will sign you up to a union without your consent.
I should know, because it happened to me. Decades ago the company I was working for was sold to Sweden. One day I received a bill for a home insurance from a Swedish insurance company. I didn't own a home. Called the insurance company to ask what it was about. They apologized and said a Swedish union had signed me up with them. Called that union and they said yes now you're a member. Told them I didn't want to be a member. They told me I can't exit the union, my new employer had signed me up as a member, talk to them. I called HR and said that I'm not going to be a member of any union. They told me that it wasn't optional and I had to be a union member. I told them I'll get my lawyer if that's the case, and they relented and asked me to hand in a signed statement that I didn't wish to be a union member. And that was the end of it.
Then hackers here say that these things don't happen, even though the union clearly states on their webpage that this is standard procedure. And if it did happen, then it's a good thing. It is a bit funny, and dumb at the same time.
How would you feel if your company was sold to Utah. Then without you knowing, your new boss signs you up as a paying member of the Mormon church, and then the Mormon church signs you up for home insurance? It's kind of the same thing. The union - or the church - might be wonderful, but I'm not going to allow anybody to sign any contract in my name without my permission. That's fucked up.
What he said.
If that doesn't happens then they've made an error.
Your link also states that membership is entirely optional, and you can choose another union or none.
Finally, signing you up for expensive insurance absolutely requires your consent, as doing that is otherwise illegal. Your link also don't say anything about this, so no I don't have "this truth" in front of me.
Just making up anti-union statements all over the place.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/3fer-bag-trusler-og-boelleme...
Most wages are of course higher than that because the market can bear more. Those wages are mostly set by market conditions but the unions and the employers' associations do perform a big ritual every few years (and they do affect the wages a bit). The problem comes in sectors with a high degree of monopsony -- only one or a few big employers. Examples are schools and hospitals -- the unions and various levels of the state apparatus (often including parliament and government) have a large influence on the wages there.
Nordic countries actually have relatively weak labour laws. What might be handled in legislation in US (e.g. minimum wage), is handled in collective bargaining agreements, that are negotiated between trade unions and employers' associations.
And the trade unions and the employers' associations like it this way, that the power is in their hands, and not in legislation. A government that would try to step on their turf, would be asking for a lot of trouble.