We agree at last! I too think no one should be forced to join any union, any union.
However fair go here please I do not think its fair for me to work for non unionists.
Workchoices said I could not do so, fair enough, but wages rises we won go to them, is that fair?
Why should they not have to fight for their own wage wins?
Why load my members down with non members problems?

thought I would come back and have one last look.
Every time a question of fairness like in my last post is asked the answer never comes.
I see the claim the thread is about no differently now than the day it was posted.
Evidence to me at least my lifetime claims there is a difference union to union is true.
One day, I hope to live to see it, we the union movement will not load our boat with rocks, we will face our differences, each take their own path.

“Every time a question of fairness like in my last post is asked the answer never comes.”

You pose difficult questions in your pervious post Belly. Maybe everyone has left them alone because they don’t have answers.

I’ll give it a go….although I don’t think I’m fully awake yet! ( ; ~}

Yes unions want to win pay rises and better conditions for themselves, and can rightly feel a bit peeved if non-unionists get the same improvements.

But everyone in the same sort of job should be under the same set of basic conditions, shouldn’t they? If non-unionists worked under worse conditions, then everyone would feel the need to be a unionist, regardless of the fees or whether or not they agreed with the broader agenda or other parts of it.

That would effectively take away a worker’s right to choose whether to be a member or not. And it could give a false indication of support for the whole agenda of a given union, if half its members are only there in order to gain the same basic working conditions as other members of the union.

All considered, I’d say that any wins that a union achieves must be distributed evenly across that sector regardless of union membership. There would still be the essential difference between union and non-union members in the amount of support they received regarding all sorts of work issues.

I can’t see that unions would get loaded down with non-members’ problems.

Ludwig,

Brave attempt but logically flawed.

"If non-unionists worked under worse conditions, then everyone would feel the need to be a unionist, regardless of the fees or whether or not they agreed with the broader agenda or other parts of it."

To join or not to join are not the only options. Consider the following alternatives:

(a) Non-unionists could employ professional negotiators to improve their position too. That would also undermine the claim that non-unionists are spongers free-wheeling on union gains without opening their own wallets to pay fees for benefits they didn't help earn.

(b) Non-unionists could make a donation to charity equivalent to the amount they might have paid in union membership fees when they gain benefits brought about by union effort. They would get equal pay and conditions, maintain their freedom not to associate and provide a much-needed benefit to worthy causes.

(c) Non-unionists could pay a pro-rata fee to the union at the time of gaining the union-generated benefit. They would not be required to join the union but a pro-rata fee would recognise that they are deriving a benefit they did nothing to create.

(d) Non-unionists could agree to forgo the union-generated benefits and/or enter into individual contracts with the employer. Unions after all are merely a collective form of workplace bargaining. There is no reason why non-unionists couldn't get off their backsides and bargain with the boss too.

I'd be interested in your response to these alternatives to your one-size-must-fit-all scenario.

With more space, I'd also tackle your other premiss: "...everyone in the same sort of job should be under the same set of basic conditions...any wins that a union achieves must be distributed evenly across that sector regardless of union membership". There are many precedents for and contemporary examples of differential pay and conditions for similar work.

Ludwig Spikey, both of you have interesting points, remember the task will not be easy.
But in time it will happen, every single week a sacked or deeply in trouble worker rings me.
quote I have meant to join the union, will do now can you help me?
Sometimes they have been in that job for years but not paid union fees.
operating on Ludwig's basis, every worker must be paid and treated fairly , I once helped every time for free.
Workchoices made it law, I can not act for non union members, still nothing has changed.
Look sorry but I have even lied and said some poor beggar was a cash paying member, saved the job, but seen union dues stopped after.
Some bosses are good blokes, they pay every cent every week, yet other are the reverse.
most, for no other reason than to freeze unions out will pay both groups the same.
until no union is on site then?
how many of us think without unions wages will stay at present levels?
I am proud that my young delegates in construction are not seeking 33% wages rises, are often leading hands on the way higher and are all elected by a workforce who are more than happy with them,in no way bad because they are union.

Spikey, I’ve got no problem with any of your suggestions.

Your main principle that non-unionists should pay something for gains they benefit from that are union-generated has merit. That would certainly even up the playing field and help reduce tension between union and non-union workers.

Just as long as we don’t end up with a significant difference in wages or conditions for union and non-union workers who are doing the same jobs side by side. That would be a recipe for strife.

I await your tackling of my “other premises” with interest.

Cheers.