...but you are welcome to try. Forced to pay union dues. Forced to pay the fucking union. Here, I'll even get you started. "Herpa Derpa Faux News I read no further. "
As a condition of employment, asshole. You seem to be fine with those in just about any other circumstance. Here though, what you're agreeing with is a diktat to employers from the state as to what terms they hire employees on. The tumultuous contradictions of Albertarianism continue.
Public employees? No. That's not a corporation. We can't just refuse to do business with it. No government entity should be in the business of arm-twisting for a union. Private corporations, sure. You could make handstand breastfeeding a condition of employment, and nobody is forced to give your company money.
Only if I'm allowed to throw out just that part of it. Binding public and private together cannot be an excuse to kill the idea entirely. Probably not much of an issue in the private sector, though. The fact that it is a union shop is often a big selling point for (arguably misguided) tradesmen and such.
So there are two parties, one that requires employees, one that has a stable of available workers. We'll call party A the company, and Party B the union. With me so far Albert? Party B negotiates a contract with party A to provide staffing at specified rates of compensation. Both A and B are agreeable to this contract and the papers are signed. Anybody who wants to work for party A must do so by going through party B. And they must, as a condition of accepting this opportunity, agree to the rules set forth in the contract between party A and B. Albert, please explain what is wrong with this idea.
You didn't. You were engaging in the shifty bullshitter tactic of stacking up only those details you want to contend with, and I declined to oblige.
When it locks out party C, the independent prospective employee, from a government position, then there is a problem.
The government should not be able to make participation (paid or otherwise) in any organization a condition of employment. Any provision of contract that excludes an independent person from a public sector job without participation in a union should, in my view, be held invalid. One person should have as much right as any other to seek employment in the public sector without having to join a union. If they want to, great. If they don't, it shouldn't be required. If labor laws were different, I'd be more okay with requiring union membership for a private sector job. After all, a union could contract with an employer to supply that employer's labor. However, since labor laws give unions power--and that power is backed by the coercive power of government--I do not favor requiring someone to join a union as a condition of employment in the private sector either.
I'm going to take this quote out of the order in which it was written, because I can shoot this down very, very quickly. The older term for a party that "has a stable of available workers" is slave owner.
Are you talking about public sector unions? Because if you're talking about private sector, you'd also have to be against staffing agencies too.
I'll happily sever private employment with companies who do not contract with the government. They didn't consult me when they drafted this bad boy. It's the mere question of government employees being a captive member base for fucking unions I find galling.
Meanwhile, it seems you're all for laws that protect employees from exploitation -- as am I, in general -- unless the exploitation is being done by a union, in which case it becomes an inalienable right.