The reason that a union is in a workplace is because a majority of workers voted in a union. Once a union is in a workplace it is required by law to represent ALL workers. So why wouldn't all workers contribute to those expenses? Should certain people get a free ride? Absolutely not.
Laws such as "right to work" have absolutely are designed to break unions, people who push for this legislation don't give a hoot about people paying dues...It's all about breaking the unions.
I am always amazed how many Americans do not understand that labor unions are the reason we have an 8-hour work day, overtime pay, wages most of us can live on and save for retirement, and other benefits and protections. Anyone who does not want to join a union and pay a small amount of their wages toward dues should simply go to work for a non-union employer! Otherwise they are just "free loaders!"
When members of a labor union vote to strike, and then they eventually get the increased salaries and benefits they requested, all members of that union reap the rewards. A union is akin to a family, and if the family is to survive, they must stand together. Therefore, it is morally right to insist that new employees join their union as a condition of employment.
It is morally justifiable to require union membership from employees, and to take away the rights of businesses to declare themselves "union shops" infringes on rights they should have as business owners. Employees do not have an inherent right to work wherever they wish, without consideration for the practices of the business to which they are applying. Additionally, it is unfair for non-union employees to reap the benefits gained by collective bargaining and union representation, when they do not pay dues themselves.
People who object to having to join a union to work for employees with union labor are incorrect to suggest that the requirement is immoral. Rather, it would be immoral to ask one's co-workers to pay for the union, so that one could enjoy the gains (pay, benefits, and working conditions) negotiated by the union at no cost. We live in a world where we pay for, and are subject to, collective decisions that we would not choose on our own. Is it immoral to ask someone to drive 25 miles per hour down a residential street? Is it immoral to ask those who object to war to pay for our military conflicts? To allow everyone to reject collective decisions and requirements is what would be immoral, because it would lead to a world shaped very much by power, and very little by morality.
By making an employee join a labor union as a condition of employment they are benefiting from it also so. They are much more likely to have their job and to get good compensation. It also gives them things that they may not have otherwise had such as, insurance benefits.
Labor unions promise pensions and other benefits after years of service but, the majority of the time, they will find a reason to fire a worker before they reach this point, to avoid having to pay them. I find this to be extremely offensive, and that is not the only issue. This is why I oppose labor unions.
Since labor unions are not organizations of the companies that employ union employees, they should not be a condition of employment. This would be like saying that, in order to work at a bank, you must have an account at the bank, which is something that is highly likely to happen, but should not be a requirement of employment. Also, labor unions make decisions that have an effect on the livelihood of union members. These decisions are not always favorable and, therefore, it should be only by choice that someone joins the union.
There are many dedicated workers out there. They begin with one company and work loyally until retirement. On the other hand there are some that change jobs as often as the sun rises. Ultimately I think it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to join the labor union. By forcing them it is a form of dictatorship.
If it gets to the point where the unionized employees aren't being hired because of their union, then there's a problem, but otherwise there's no reason to limit to unionized employees. It's scare tactics by either side, and neither side is right. I don't think a grocery bagger should make more than a doctor.
It is really sad when jobs are at stake because individuals are forced to join labor unions in order to keep their jobs. First of all, I have to mention that even though, historically, labor unions were needed in order to provide fair working conditions, right now, they take advantage of the system and are even the downfall of many existing companies. If there are people who feel this way, and do not want to uphold the things that unions stand for, and work without union representation, it should be their right to do so. It is definitely a form of discrimination if it is not.
I defy a pro union person to tell me what significant protections unions provide that are not provided by law. Unions had their place before worker protection laws were passed. Moreover, I have been in several companies where unions have negotiated worse deals for members than the non union members received.
The only thing that is legally required of a person when they take a job is that they comply with company policies and perform the task for which they are being paid. For that reason, I do not think it is morally justifiable to force people to join unions and potentially pay them dues if they do not agree with the opinions or functions of those unions.
If a worker wishes to join a labor, then that is their right. If a worker does not wish to join a union, however, it is morally wrong to force them to do so. Doing so is an infringement on an individual's freedom of association. The worker may not like the union or disagree with its objectives or political views. They should, therefore, not be forced to join an organization that they do not wish to.