Obama signed the changes to labor provisions today:
-Require federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change.
-Reverse a Bush administration order requiring federal contractors to post notice that workers can limit financial support of unions serving as their exclusive bargaining representatives.
-Prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses meant to influence workers deciding whether to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.
As a matter of policy, it seems ridiculous to give federal contractors money to lobby against a union. On the other hand, taking down notices that workers have rights against the union seems to be frankly pandering. The rhetoric about unions always focuses on the workers, but an awful lot of the actual policy seems designed to enhance, not the power of the workers over their employers, but that of the union over the workers.
"an awful lot of the actual policy seems designed to enhance, not the power of the workers over their employers, but that of the union over the workers."
It's unfortunate more people don't realize this.
Union management is as corrupt as any corporate or government organization. Why else would they support open borders, something that will drive down wages of their members?
yeah, who's against giving workers more information. People should know their rights regarding unions.
On the other hand, taking down notices that workers have rights against the union seems to be frankly pandering.
Kinda like requiring federal contractors to put up notices to tell workers how to avoid belonging to unions? Was Bush "pandering" when he put into effect such a requirement 8 years ago? Presidents work to do what they think is right; it's much easier when that's also popular with a core constituency. That's good politics, not "pandering."
There remains no bar to employers putting up such notices, nor does this executive order make any changes in the underlying law. It remains the case that, in non-right-to-work states, workers who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement are required to pay that portion of union dues that goes to bargaining and contract administration.
It's been a long-time business fantasy that workers hate unions and are only members because they don't know their legal rights. The fact that union membership increased by almost 500,000 last year, as well as the fear evinced by many in the business commmunity about card check leading to a wave of unionization, would suggest that unions are actually pretty popular amongst workers these days.
"an awful lot of the actual policy seems designed to enhance, not the power of the workers over their employers, but that of the union over the workers."
Sometimes I read Megan's posts and think to myself "Why did she even bother writing this sentence? Isn't that plainly obvious to just about anyone?"
I guess not?
Is any of this surprising? He promised to strengthen the power of unions at the expense of both employers and workers (although not in those exact words). Now he's doing it. What's there to say except "yep, that's about what I figured he'd do".
According to the article I read (bberg?), he
1. required federal contractors to take down the signs telling workers about limiting financial support for unions.
2. required federal contractors to post signs telling them they could unionize.
Kinda like requiring federal contractors to put up notices to tell workers how to avoid belonging to unions? Was Bush "pandering" when he put into effect such a requirement 8 years ago? Presidents work to do what they think is right; it's much easier when that's also popular with a core constituency. That's good politics, not "pandering."
No, Robert, that's informing people of their rights. You have the right, confirmed by the Supreme Court in Beck, not to have the Union take your money and spend it on political activities.
If you respect the rights of workers, you want every worker to know this.
If you think workers are just cash cows to be milked for the benefit of union bosses and the Democrat Party, you don't want them to know this. Yes, letting workers know this helps the Republicans. So what? It also helps the workers.
How does keeping information from them help them?
LOL - you conservatives have finally found yourselves a regulation you could support, have ya?
Losers.
Thought about a law forbidding all legal persons who are not citizens from giving money for political purposes? Seems to me that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech could be construed to apply only to natural persons, not corporations, union and other purely judical persons.
I'll take this executive order so long as card check remains buried. I pray that piece of crap legislation never sees the light of day in Congress.
@Diversity
That would be struck down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat. The legal precedent in the US is very clear about free speech applying to non-citizen persons. A person in the US on a student visa, work visa, or just as a tourist has as much right to free speech as a citizen. There are limits on foreign nationals giving money to campaigns, but that is because of allegiance to a foreign state, not free speech. You can't reasonably claim that US based corporations have allegiances to foreign states.
The fact that union membership increased by almost 500,000 last year, as well as the fear evinced by many in the business commmunity about card check leading to a wave of unionization, would suggest that unions are actually pretty popular amongst workers these days.
It was an increase of about 426,000 and it broke down as:
Private sector - up 151,000 members
Public sector - up 275,000 members
Right now there are fewer than 8.3 million private sector union members, and more than 7.8 million public sector union members.
I estimate that in 3 to 4 years there will be more union employees working for government than there will be in the entire American private sector.
I would also suggest it's pretty hard to card check people who don't have jobs.
Seems to me that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech could be construed to apply only to natural persons, not corporations, union and other purely judical persons.
and:
That would be struck down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat.
Well, let's just find out what 2 U.S.C. 441b has to say about it:
"It is unlawful...for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in...Congress are to be voted for..."
Would this be struck down in a heartbeat? Well, SCOTUS has the best answer to that quesiton in FEC v. NRWC, 459 U.S. 197 (1982), and as you can see at the link, the answer is "no."
No, Robert, that's informing people of their rights. You have the right, confirmed by the Supreme Court in Beck, not to have the Union take your money and spend it on political activities. If you respect the rights of workers, you want every worker to know this...If you think workers are just cash cows to be milked for the benefit of union bosses and the Democrat Party, you don't want them to know this. Yes, letting workers know this helps the Republicans. So what? It also helps the workers.
I'd be more impressed by this argument had the Bush Administration insisted that workers be informed of all their rights under labor law. But they picked the right they liked and decided to leave the workers uninformed about the rest (the right to organize, the Weingarten right, the right to not be fired for protected activity, etc.)
And unions are already obligated to inform their members of their Beck rights.
And unions are already obligated to inform their members of their Beck rights.
If asked. Of course, you have to know to ask, and once you do they know who the troublemakers are.
"an awful lot of the actual policy seems designed to enhance, not the power of the workers over their employers, but that of the union over the workers."
This observation is meant to elide the main question, which is whether workers can enhance their power viz. employers except via unions. If you believe, as I do, that they generally can't, then enhanced power of unions over workers comes with the territory and is an acceptable "price."
Certainly not if you listen to those advocating for "card check".
The workers ARE the union, Megan. I'm former UAW and I know how it works. We vote. We talk amongst ourselves. We run the show.
which is whether workers can enhance their power viz. employers except via unions. If you believe, as I do, that they generally can't
... then you're living in 1902?
Seriously, now, the head of the United Auto Workers just got done claiming that his boys shouldn't have to take a pay cut because the nonunion workers at American Toyota plants make even more money than UAW employees do. How'd that happen, if workers just can't improve their lot without a union?
then enhanced power of unions over workers comes with the territory and is an acceptable "price."
But unions don't increase a worker's power vs. his employer. They increase the union's power. This matters to the worker only to the extent that the worker's priorities mirror those of the union. To the extent that it doesn't, unionizing *worsens* a worker's power vs. his employer. Under labor law it is possible for 49% of the workers to absolutely loathe the union's priorities and be left with no recourse but to quit and hope there's a NON-union shop in their field.
If my boss tells me "I expect you to be on-call for work at any time this next three months", I can say "sure, I'll do that, but in return I want flexibility in the hours I work when I'm not on call". Flexible hours are more important to me than guaranteed time outside of work. I can make this deal because I don't belong to a union. Were I in a union, my employer would be bound by the collective agreement, and if it dictated that being on-call was not allowed then presto -- I just got fucked out of my flexible hours by the union. Or if the union mandated increased pay for being on-call then I'm stuck with THAT instead of what I really want, because my boss can't NOT offer me the money without getting busted by the union and sure as hell isn't going to offer me money AND special treatment. Worst of all, I might not even be allowed to be on call at all; in most unionized industries the people with seniority would have dibs on the extra hours.
So don't tell me a union increases my power vs. my employer. It doesn't. It strips me of ALL power versus my employer and places it in the hands of a corporate entity called a "union". I have to hope the people running the union care about me rather than, say, their own power and wealth. There's no reason for a rational person to expect that.
The workers ARE the union, Megan. I'm former UAW and I know how it works. We vote. We talk amongst ourselves. We run the show.
Right.
So you would agree with the statement "George Bush had the interests of American workers at heart, and the workers ran the show from 2001 to 2008"? After all, a majority of working Americans voted for the guy twice.
Peter:
You misunderstand Diversity. The argument is that since corporations are just artificial "legal persons" and not real persons like you and me, they don't have Constitutional rights.
While technically correct, Diversity's assertion is irrelevant. Corporations don't have rights because they're not people, but shareholders do, and it would be blatantly unconstitutional to bar them from exercising their right to free speech, just as it would be blatantly unconstitutional to censor books published by corporate-owned publishers.
While technically correct, my assertion is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court is not in the habit of letting the Constitution influence the substance of its rulings.
So you would agree with the statement "George Bush had the interests of American workers at heart, and the workers ran the show from 2001 to 2008"? After all, a majority of working Americans voted for the guy twice.
Proof? What do you define as working? And remember, retirees aren't "working".
"And unions are already obligated to inform their members of their Beck rights."
If asked. Of course, you have to know to ask, and once you do they know who the troublemakers are.
Actually there is a positive legal requirement for unions to inform their members of their Beck rights, whether asked or not. If unions screw it up, it becomes almost impossible to enforce the union security clause as modified by the Beck ruling.
In my union, there is a full-page Beck notice in the national newsletter every year.
Seriously, now, the head of the United Auto Workers just got done claiming that his boys shouldn't have to take a pay cut because the nonunion workers at American Toyota plants make even more money than UAW employees do. How'd that happen, if workers just can't improve their lot without a union?
It's pretty simple. Toyota maintains terms and conditions of employment competitive with UAW plants because they want to keep the UAW out of theirs. In the absence of any UAW workplaces, I doubt whether Toyota would be paying what they do now.
There's an old saying in the union business to the effect that companies that have unions generally deserve them.
Robert:
I'm a non-union computer programmer (is there any other kind?), and I make more than most union workers. How does this fit into your model of labor relations?
I'm the wife of a union member. Not of the UAW, which is NOT the only union in U.S.
Since I am my husband's internet connection, I've been privy to several union message boards and sites.
The members of my husband's union are conservatives, they just do not know it. They are gung ho for the 2nd Amendment, they are disgusted with welfare, and they abhor illegal immigration.
Most of the message boards we suscribed to were so disgustingly right wing that I could barely stand to read them.
Yet, the local membership of the union my hubby belongs to is flat out cheering the bashing that the UAW is getting. You see, my hubby's union worked on retooling GM plants and saw (and had to combat - literally) work rules of the UAW.
Combat? Yes, for their own safety. 'No, you cannot use this corridor until we are through hanging the pipe' sort of stuff... it became a sort of a joke that perhaps they ought to let the UAW people through regardless the hazard -- simply because they were arrogant enough to think their union membership allowed them safe passage.
While there may be no official anti-UAW sentiment from other unions, believe me there is plenty of the unofficial sort.
Dan,
Let me see if I have this right.
If 49% of the workers loathe the union and don't want it (yet won't go elsewhere), then presumably 51% of the workers support the union - at least enough to vote for it. This scenario is objectionable to you.
Sounds quite like a typical democracy scenario if you ask me. (Compare and contrast with the 2000 Presidential election, for example.)
Why can't you or your fellow loathers exercise your freedom of choice and find a new job where a union won't interfere with your . . . well, I guess your "right" to not have a union? Not a thing in the world stopping any of you from making a change.
Or do you simply want what you want, how you want it, where you want it and when you want it, preferences of the majority be damned?
Odd position to hold.
If 49% of the workers loathe the union and don't want it (yet won't go elsewhere), then presumably 51% of the workers support the union - at least enough to vote for it. This scenario is objectionable to you.
Yes, the notion of a tyranny of the majority dictating to me how I may work, when I may work, and on what I may work is objectionable to me. If you think you have the right to *vote* on the conditions under which I can sell my labor then you can go fuck yourself. I'd sooner shoot you in the fucking head than submit to that kind of fascistic bullshit.
See, I happen to be intelligent and hardworking. I don't dispute that unions benefit the lazy and incompetent -- they gain the power to vote everyone down to their level and prevent them from excelling on their own merits. For them, a union is probably a good deal. For me, not so much.
Thanks for clarifying.
Though I am puzzled by one thing - you do, in fact, have the right to sell your intelligent, hardworking labor wherever you want. Why do you want to sell it where you're forced to take a raw deal by your fascistic, lazy and incompetent co-workers? You surely must be able to find something more suitable.
Odd choice for such an intelligent, hardworking guy.
Rofe: "Though I am puzzled by one thing - you do, in fact, have the right to sell your intelligent, hardworking labor wherever you want. Why do you want to sell it where you're forced to take a raw deal by your fascistic, lazy and incompetent co-workers?"
I agree, selling my labor wherever I want is one of my rights. However, the union violates this right: they use force to prevent me from selling it at my current employer.
You are right, this is democracy. It's actually an embodiment of the classical flaw in democratic government: what happens when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner?
Ninja,
Was your employer unionized when you agreed to be hired there? (Getting hired is, last I checked, a two-way street.)
In other words, if the sheep is forced to negotiate dinner with the wolves, then there's a fairness problem. But if the sheep goes out looking for dinner companions and picks a couple of wolves over here rather than a couple of other sheep over there, then the sheep isn't much of thinker, is he. Just a sheep, in fact.
(Why am I reminded of folks who buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise from low-flying planes?)
Rofe: "Was your employer unionized when you agreed to be hired there? (Getting hired is, last I checked, a two-way street.)"
I should have clarified that I was posing a hypothetical. I'm an independent contractor.
However, it doesn't matter unless the employer freely chose to be unionized.
"In other words, if the sheep is forced to negotiate dinner with the wolves, then there's a fairness problem."
This is exactly the situation with unionization. An employer and employees who do not wish to be unionized can be forced to unionize against their will.
Once a union forms, the employer does not have the option of saying "sorry guys, I prefer to buy labor from other suppliers". And other suppliers do not have the option of selling to the willing employer.
I guess the situation is close to this: I make dinner plans with a sheep, then 3 wolves can walk up and force us to vote on dinner. And by law, I can't take any measures to prevent wolves from showing up.
Ninja - I see now where you're coming from.
Aren't the employees the ones who decide whether or not to unionize? I presume we're going to disagree on this, but I'd say the employees absolutely should have the opportunity to decide whether or not to unionize.
Back to our sheep and wolves - if the sheep are sitting around debating dinner plans and the wolves approach, the sheep can presumably say not interested. And if some say sure, join us while others say no way, then - assuming the majority says c'mon - the real question becomes whether the majority then peels off the sheepskins to reveal the inner wolves.
Or maybe the question is whether the wolf is merely a case of inflated fears and the wolf is actually just a ram.
Rofe: "Aren't the employees the ones who decide whether or not to unionize? I presume we're going to disagree on this, but I'd say the employees absolutely should have the opportunity to decide whether or not to unionize."
I agree; if a bunch of people wish to form a corporation to sell labor, they should absolutely have that right.
But their customers should also have the right to buy labor from other suppliers. My objection to unionization *as it exists in the US today* is that the labor corporation can use force (or threats of force) to prevent competition.
"Back to our sheep and wolves - if the sheep are sitting around debating dinner plans and the wolves approach, the sheep can presumably say not interested."
I'm pretty sure a "no unions at this workplace" policy is illegal. So the sheep don't really get to say "not interested."
Nor are they given the option of saying "screw you guys, I'm going home" when their dining partners reveal their true selves.
I'm a non-union computer programmer (is there any other kind?), and I make more than most union workers. How does this fit into your model of labor relations?
Apples and oranges. How much would unionized programmers make? If experience in other industries is any guide, probably more than non-union programmers make now. The fact that you make more than unionized workers in jobs for which there's less demand (or greater supply) is irrelevant.
I agree; if a bunch of people wish to form a corporation to sell labor, they should absolutely have that right. But their customers should also have the right to buy labor from other suppliers. My objection to unionization *as it exists in the US today* is that the labor corporation can use force (or threats of force) to prevent competition.
I have never understood why folks who think of themselves as libertarians or free marketers are so hostile to the right of parties to reach binding agreements. Why shouldn't a union and an employer sign a binding agreement? Why should a union be barred from secondary boycotts?
The irony underlying American labor law is that unions would generally be more successful in the absence of any governmental interference in labor relations.
There are other employers - but the union's goal is to be there, too. Unions are exempt from anti-monopoly laws. If you don't like GM, you can apply at Ford and Chrysler, but if you've got a problem with the UAW, you're either getting out of automotive work or moving to Tennessee...
Robert Levine: "I have never understood why folks who think of themselves as libertarians or free marketers are so hostile to the right of parties to reach binding agreements."
I have no objection to binding agreements whatsoever, provided the contract is entered into freely. By "freely", I mean a contract signed under circumstances where both parties have the right to walk away or do business elsewhere.
That is NOT the case in the US today. If employees form a union, it is illegal for the employer to take his business elsewhere (fire the union members and hire non-union replacements).
How much would unionized programmers make? If experience in other industries is any guide, probably more than non-union programmers make now.
If experience in other industries is any guide, unionized programmers might make more money but there would be fewer programmers employed and the companies employing them would be going out of business.
"Actually there is a positive legal requirement for unions to inform their members of their Beck rights, whether asked or not. If unions screw it up, it becomes almost impossible to enforce the union security clause as modified by the Beck ruling.
In my union, there is a full-page Beck notice in the national newsletter every year."
Robert, surely you aren't comparing a once-a-year notice, in a publication that workers disenchanted with their union probably just throw away, to posters on the walls of the workplace? One is just a bare minimum to be able to claim technical compliance with notice requirements, the other is
"There's an old saying in the union business to the effect that companies that have unions generally deserve them." I've worked for such employers, now and then. When I was young, I even helped unionize one such shop. It didn't change much. Finding another job is much, much faster and more effective.
But it's not always true. Maybe the company deserved it 80 years ago - company management has changed many times since then, but when does a union ever get decertified? Maybe the company's competitors deserved it, and a union used the dues from the competitors' workers to complete their monopoly over the industry workforce.
Posted by Robert Levine
But unions don't increase a worker's power vs. his employer. They increase the union's power.
While I was a contract worker at PEMCO Aerospace in Dothan, Alabama, the union stood up for me in an issue with management. They did not have to, since I was a temp and not a union member, but they did so anyway and resolved the issue in my favor.
I have never forgotten that, and it really changed my mind wrt unions. When you have a problem with your employer, it really does help to have someone in your court.
If you think you have the right to *vote* on the conditions under which I can sell my labor then you can go fuck yourself. I'd sooner shoot you in the fucking head than submit to that kind of fascistic bullshit.
Why don't you shoot your employer, then? The employer has the ultimate say on how you "sell" your labor. You get to vote on contract negotiations in a union. Your employer tells you to take it or leave it...at least in every job I have ever seen.
Interesting that you seem so willing to talk about killing people. I wonder where you get this hostility towards people trying to actually make better conditions for you.
celtic,
Stupid killing talk aside from the other hothead, I don't understand how you could say the employer has the ultimate say in how you sell your labor.
The employer may have the ultimate say in THEIR offer for your labor, but that's their right. It's their offer.
You have the ultimate say to accept, in which case it becomes yours. You accepted and took ownership.
In my case, I went to my employer, gave them the conditions to hire me. They refused. Two months later they came back and offered me the some conditions. I refused and upped the offer, they accepted. A year later I renegotiated for a variety of reasons and changed the offer.
I prefer it this way. Between me and my employer.
Now I've been pretty fortunate to have marketable skills my employer really needs. But I am glad I don't have a Union dictating to me and my employer how they need to handle labor negoatiations.
I personally love the story of the UAW worker who missed 80 days of work and GM couldn't fire him because of the union work rules. And then the UAW wonders why no non-union worker feels an ounce of pity for their situation. I feel for the union workers who actually do their job and have to endure bullshit like that.
I heard on CNBC the other morning that 71% of current UNION workers do not want card check! Wonder why???
Robert:
The fact that you make more than unionized workers in jobs for which there's less demand (or greater supply) is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant at all. Once you acknowledge that wages are determined by supply and demand, your claim that they're just a matter of employer fiat falls apart. The truth is that a workers doesn't just have to accept whatever his employer offers; if he has a skill that's in high demand, he can get a better offer elsewhere. If not, he can learn one.
Market pricing is the best known way to allocate scarce resources. Yes, if a small minority of workers unionize, they may be able to enrich themselves at the expense of management, consumers, and non-union workers, assuming that they don't bankrupt the business. But if we were all to unionize, then the entire economy would become inefficient and sclerotic, and we'd all be poorer for it (consider France, whose per-capita GDP is now only 2/3 of the United States').
"then the entire economy would become inefficient and sclerotic, and we'd all be poorer for it"
Man, that cracked me up. I wonder what that hypothetical inefficient economy would look like? Would it, for example, include a collapsing bubble leading to massive job loss and a decade-long depression?
Or...wait -- do you think unions are to blame for the current economic slump? Please say "yes"....
I wonder what that hypothetical inefficient economy would look like?
I see you didn't read his whole post. France. That's what a country looks like when the unions are out of control.
Or...wait -- do you think unions are to blame for the current economic slump? Please say "yes"....
They're certainly to blame for what happened to the US auto and steel industries. Not so much because union workers are overpaid, but because of work rules and job-protection clauses. The auto industry was on the ropes even while the rest of the economy was booming.
Market pricing is the best known way to allocate scarce resources. Yes, if a small minority of workers unionize, they may be able to enrich themselves at the expense of management, consumers, and non-union workers, assuming that they don't bankrupt the business. But if we were all to unionize, then the entire economy would become inefficient and sclerotic, and we'd all be poorer for it (consider France, whose per-capita GDP is now only 2/3 of the United States').
"France is more unionized than the US, US per capita GDP is higher than France, therefore unions are bad for per capita GDP" simply doesn't scan according to any system of logic I know. US per cap GDP was likely far higher than France in 1946 than it is now; does that mean unions are good for per cap GDP? I suspect that unionization levels have far less to do with per capita GDP that a host of other factors. It's worth noting that the French work far fewer hours on average than we do over here. They appear to have made a societal choice about balancing free time and income that's different from ours. That seems to be more cultural than union-based.
The microeconomic effect of unions appears to be to redistribute money within enterprises from owners to workers. Being a worker, I view that as a feature and not a bug.
"The microeconomic effect of unions appears to be to redistribute money within enterprises from owners to workers. Being a worker, I view that as a feature and not a bug."
Appearances can be deceiving. Being a worker, the microeconomic effect of unions appears to *me* to be to impair efficiency and flexibility, and to find various ways to pay for union overhead at the employer's (and ultimately customer's) expense.
"The workers ARE the union"
Really Bob? Does that mean every teamster and NY laborer union member is a made Genovese man? I thought it was just the union bosses.
This observation is meant to elide the main question, which is whether workers can enhance their power viz. employers except via unions.
Well Rich, it depends. Are you a worthwhile worker? Will your boss lose out if you go to work someplace else? The you do, and should, have power WRT to your boss.
And if you aren't, then you shouldn't have power WRT your boss.
I observe that objections to unions fall into two categories: concern over an interference in free contracts and free negotiations between people selling labour and their customers, and conviction that some people simply have an inherent right to more of the good things in life than others, and that unions get in the way of their achieving this right. I have learned to distinguish the two positions by raising the issue of the so-called professions (actually the last remaining medieval craft guilds; the last of the organizations which have the ability to use state violence to preserve an absolute monopoly.
If, for example, you want to work in a car plant without a union, you can find a non-union car company. If you cannot find such a company, you can in principle start one. But if you want to practice medicine, you cannot provide services under any condition whatever without the approval of the medical association. Clearly, the power exerted by "self-governing professions" exceeds those of even the most ambitious unions.
Those with real libertarian objections to union practices will, like Milton Friedman, also advocate the elimination of the monopoly power of the professions. For those who don't, let me just take on one of the arguments for paying some workers substantially less than others: the notion that everyone can train for a "better" job. I would answer that by pointing out that unless a company makes a habit of paying people for jobs that don't matter (in which case their shareholders should fire management), the company needs all of the jobs done, which means that every worker making an essential contribution to the product or service for sale deserves a fair wage. Granted, workers have the right to recapture the cost of their education, but the differentials common in the American corporate world today, where executives make thousands of times as much as the workers, seem difficult to justify by any standard.
Hey Eric. No, no, I read the post. And I still find the idea that France is inefficient but we, at the moment, are efficient, to be pretty entertaining. But that's just me, I guess.
Automakers aren't doing well, of course. Non-unionized industries are, of course, doing immeasurably better. As I'm sure you've noticed, no non-union workers have been laid off in this economy. Thank God for right to work.
I'm a union member in an open shop state, and I think that's a great arrangement. All employees benefit from the union's improvements to our working conditions and contracts and lobbying efforts on our behalf (being a state governed and supported system, but not gummint itself). However, no one *has* to join the union. Membership usually spikes when leadership is bad and/or wages unfair political little nasty campaigns of trying to destroy a good person's career. The union steward and lawyers will help you all the way to the finish if you were a member by the time the crap happened.
And yes, it's intensely political in our workplace and employees have no bargaining power or way to voice our stand without the union.
I understand that management checks your paystub before they start going after you...if you're doing dues deduction to the union, they won't mess with you, because it's a bigger, more public and embarassing expensive fight than they want.
My $13 per paycheck has bought me peace and freedom and good pay and benefits and a good contract--hence, the ability to do my job well. An excellent bargain.