If the new contract is worse, leaving the union isn't sufficient to get back to where you were, because the employer won't offer the old terms to non-union members and the new terms to union members.

You may or may not be better off. How will people that are/aren't part of a union be treated if some people are members? If majority is union and you are not, will you be shunned, denied same opportunities for promotion, etc? We can only guess.

I believe the person you're replying to was talking about how non-union members would be treated by union members. And, at least in the US, the answer is "horrible". The people in the unions are widely known for coming out hard and strong, with considerable bile, against anyone that so much as expresses the opinion that the union might not be the right choice for them. Rats, scabs, etc; pick your insulting name, they're called it.

And you have about as much leverage in shaping the union contract as you do in negotiating your individual employment contract, so where's the win?

The difference is in the incentives. The union tries to make it's members happy. The employer tries to avoid liability and make a profit.

One of those is more aligned with your interests than the other.

> if you don't like it, yeah, leave the union, you're no worse off than you were before.

Completely false. With the ways that union laws work, if the majority of workers at a company unionize, then I have no choice but to be subject to their contract and fees.

Most tech companies are not in right to work states, so I'd have to go along with the contract.

That is how I would be worse off.

No one is forcing you to work a union job in the same way that no one is forcing you to work a job you don't like.

> No one is forcing you to work a union job

The person asked if I was worse off or not. And I am. I am worse off in that I cannot stay at a job that becomes a union job, without having to pay the union.

That is how I am worse off.

Why is it bad to be forced to contribute to union dues involuntarily, but OK to be forced to contribute to shareholder profits involuntarily (as all employees are in for-profit enterprises)?

Huh? Contributing to shareholder profits is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has shareholders.

Being forced to pay union dues when you've decided not to be a part of that union is literal theft.

Huh? Contributing to union dues is exactly what you agree to when you take a job that has compulsory union membership.

Give whatever moral arguments that you want. I will repeat once again. The person who I was responding to said " you're no worse off than you were before".

This statement is not true, and I have explained exactly how I would be worse off.

I would be worse off in that now I have to give money to the union, and I now have to be represented by their deals, and I don't want that. That is how I am worse off.

I don't care about your moral arguments. Instead I care about what hurts or helps me.

I will repeat again. The person claimed that I would not be worse off. And that person was wrong. And I have described specifically how I would be worse off.

You keep trying to redirect to something that is not relevant. The relevant question was whether or not I would be worse off with a union. And the answer is that I have giving an exact answer as to how I would be worse off.

Glad that you agree that the original person was wrong, and that I was right on how I would be worse off.

Nothing that you said at all disagrees with me regarding this specific issue. You have made no statement that disagrees with the true fact that I would be worse off by having to be under the union contract."

This conversation is about whether or not people are harmed by unions in this way, and bringing up irrelevant stuff does not change that.

Nothing that you said is an actual convincing argument as for why unions do not harm me, when I have laid out specifically how it makes my situation worse.

I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues. Why not give a straight answer?

To address your better off vs worse off question: You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining.

> I'm simply asking you why you're very bothered by union dues, but not by shareholder dues

I said nothing of the sort. Instead I responded to someone who claimed that unions make me no worse off. And I have described how that is false.

That is the only thing that I have said. Please do not put words into my mouth or say that I said things, when I did not say them.

Can you please stop lying about me saying anything, when I have been extremely clear regarding my original statement?

It seems like you do not disagree with me that the original person is wrong though.

> You'll be better off as a union member, through the superior negotiating power of collective bargaining

Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job. There are many things in actual real life examples of union contracts that I would strongly oppose.

And no, I will not accept you talking about some hypothetical union contract that does not exist, where you claim that this non standard union contract, that has none of the bad things that I brought up, would help.

The only thing that I will accept as arguments, as for why unions are good or bad, is actual real life examples of contracts that have been enacted in the real world, because anything else is just a story that someone made up in their head.

And there are many examples of concrete real union contracts that I would absolutely not support.

> Why not give a straight answer?

A straight answer to things that you are lying about, that I did not say? I have already given you a straight answer about exactly what I believe, and that I have made no comments on any completely irreverent thing that do not disagree with what I said.

> I said nothing of the sort.

You don't need to say it directly. It's obvious from your tone that you're bothered.

> Not if I don't want that contract, or if I don't want to engage in collective bargaining, that I am now forced to join if I want to keep my job.

You don't want higher pay?

> You don't want higher pay?

What I don't want is union contracts, which have many very significant drawbacks, in the real world, that have nothing to do with pay.

There are many real world examples of union contracts that have very serious issues, regarding many things not related to pay at all.

And yes, I get to point to the problems that I see in real world examples of union contracts, because anything else about some hypothetical that does not exist, is just a story that someone made up in their head.

Where are you that has laws constraining that you have to be a part of a particular union, sounds very Soviet (in the fascist, dictatorial sense).

Only 28 states have right-to-work laws. In the rest, unions can force you to join or not work at the company in question.

Wouldn't it be a win-win if the shareholders make a profit and I make a profit from my pay, vs. me being forced to pay union dues due to laws protecting unions bargaining power and ability to dictate who can and can't join a certain industry?

Thats how you were already, working under a contract you had no input in

Even if you think this, it is less preferable for me to be subject to two masters that I have little input on, then just 1.

That just makes the problem worse.

And my evidence is any actual real life example of a union contract, which has many things that I do not support in it.

What? No it isn't. Smattering of links:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... https://legalbeagle.com/13720413-is-california-a-right-to-wo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#US_states_wi...