...and if there was no federal law forcing the business owner to allow for organization, would it happen? Is the business owner really agreeing to "this setup" or are they agreeing to terms, having been forced to accept that they have no freedom not to.
A VERY good question. Is this analogous to being forced to submit to binding arbitration with EVERY SINGLE credit card out there. Or, being forced to go through mediation (at least in Allen County) when I am going to refuse to settle and want to drag the other guy through the court. My point here is that unions aren't the only thing we're forced to deal with.
But the real answer goes back, I believe at least in part, to the early days of the labor movement. In the early days Pinkerton men gunned down strikers, and not just once. Strikers became violent and broke stuff, plus shot back or initiated shooting. Talking is almost always better than throwing punches, so the government forced recognition, thus granting the power to people to organize and gain strength.
Relatively easily. Two pronged attack of "go to college or you'll end up digging ditches" and the associated presumption it's morally superior to avoid manual labor combined with big business interests masquerading as conservative social causes.
You see in here quite a bit. A union shop goes under, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes under...mystery. A union shop goes overseas, the union killed it. A non-union shop goes overseas...mystery. Union shop puts out a bad product...well, you get the idea. Note you seldom, if ever, see any threads here where management and/or investors killed a business. I didn't see any mention of Toys R Us going bankrupt. Non-union shop, so not as interesting as Hostess going under. But Toys R Us was dragged under by a leveraged buyout putting about $500 million in debt on the books at a time when there's no way to get the needed margins to pay that back out of retail. But "job creators", you know.
This is a good point. I had a friend that worked for four (4) unions before returning to Fort Wayne. He said that in two (2) of the shops the union was killing the company, but in the other two (2) the union was saving it (or at least trying to) due to horrible management.
It's a bit more than that. At least for me. I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-crony union. I'd be a lot more in favor of unions if everyone had the freedom of association the constitution implies. Why just one union for an industry in the same business? Why shouldn't unions compete for members? Why should individuals HAVE to join unions? Why should negotiated benefits for union members HAVE to be applied to everyone? Why should non-union members have to pay fees? Oops. They don't anymore. 1 down, many to go before unions are sane.
I used to be anti-union. Now I'm anti-abuse. The cronyism part would fall into the abuse category.
Unions aren't built for competition. Onve they've achieved certain goals, they're built to maintain the status quo.
I believe this is true for American industrial unions. My understanding of the German mindset is a very different one. Respect is given to the workers by the management and the respect is reciprocal. They work together to build the best product and the union facilitates easy management by having one (1) contract with clearly understood discipline levels, pay grades, etc.
Ya know, on reflection they are competing for members....and they're losing. If employees and employers really saw value in associating with a union, membership would be rising instead of steady decline.
For years I have believed that unions have done a horrible marketing job of selling the reason they are useful and/or needed. They need to step up their game if they hope to have value in the 21st century American industry.
Regards,
Doug