Not really. Obama's foreign policy is better than the republicans and he genuinely cares about people so healthcare and welfare policies would be better, but his support base also consists of the unions, which I disagree with.

> but his support base also consists of the unions, which I disagree with

So it's OK for people to pool capital into companies and abuse workers, but it's not OK for workers to pool labor into unions to prevent it?

They're not the same. Unions are equivalent to crony capitalism (ie. regulations put in place to prevent competition), but most of what companies do is just free markets at work (which helps the consumer).

How is a union a regulation? A union is a contractual obligation between workers that they will only work under certain conditions.

> contractual obligation

In what country? In the US, most are mandated by law. All government jobs are union, regardless of the wishes of the worker.

Contracts are mutually consented to. If it's a union job, you have to be a part of the union. How is forcing workers to do something they do not want beneficial?

I'm all for unions where someone can join and leave freely without the threat of force or loss of work. Do we have that in the US? No.

I'm not sure that is correct. If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%. I also know of several teachers who are not in a Union.

As far as Union jobs go, it depends. There are Union jobs that require it and don't require it. However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to.

[1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/01/federal...

> If you look here[1], at the federal level it's about 31%.

The devil is in the details. I wonder what that figure would look like if you excluded part-time workers like, say, the census workers who are collecting the very data you cite?

> However, this has nothing to do with the worker, but is actually a contractual obligation that the employer agreed to.

Nope. The last time an employer "agreed" to a union was probably a century ago. Federal law mandates how the process is handled and the employer doesn't agree to anything. It is forced on him.

Which is fine.

What isn't fine is that it is forced on the workers too, even if they don't want it. And every worker after them.

Not cool.

What law specifically are you talking about?

Federal unions have complained that their low union membership totals is due to the federal government being the largest ‘right-to-work’ employer. Right-to-work allows an employee to determine whether he or she wants to join a union. It also keeps employers from making union membership an employment prerequisite.

Via: http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2009/02/02/a-l...

See also:

However, the most important aspect to having a federal union membership is the collective bargaining agreement. This agreement is a contract between an employer and the union which terms of employment are negotiated and adhered to by the employer and the union. These terms can be about the hiring process, salary, working conditions employment termination, work hours or employee grievances. A union represents the employee to ensure that the employer does not violate the collective bargaining agreement.

There is a long list of things up for negotiation. It seems to me that very little is being forced on anyone.

and

Also, federal unions cannot compel a non-union member to become a union member; to pay union fees or make union membership an employment precondition. As a result, federal union membership numbers are relatively small in comparison to the overall size of the federal civilian workforce.

Again, no one is being forced into anything again. They can't even establish union only jobs.

via the same link.