I can see your point too Ludwig, after all unions only formed in far different times to get fairness and balance for all.
Two differing levels would in fact be a way of forcing some to join unions, few would not pay dues for better wages.
The problem is complex.
Yet my claims about unpaid union work are for me true.
Few are aware the annual wage case run by the ACTU for minimum wage earners was largely to benefit non unionists.
Fewer low income earners are unionists, they just can not afford to be in one, spending less on say Christmas food presents and all than asked to pay union dues.
Close to a weeks pay for some lower paid.
I can report almost ever time a non unionist finds need for help they are not helped and not signed up, you can not smash your car then insure it.
However one step would be to reduce fees, yes if it was enough new members would outweigh the money lost by far, first union to try it will prosper.
Not a solution to the problem but I will look at other ideas with interest.

Ludwig“Your main principle that non-unionists should pay something for gains they benefit from that are union-generated has merit.”

Disagree.

Why should a person be forced to pay for services they never requested or contracted for, albeit they might receive a benefit?

Such a practice undermines one of the foundations of contract law, that
‘silence does not imply acceptance”.

It is no different to being are stopped at traffic lights, someone comes and cleans your windscreen and then expects you to pay.
they did not ask if you wanted your windscreen cleaned.
You have no agreement / contract with them.
You are under no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay.

“Why should a person be forced to pay for services they never requested or contracted for, albeit they might receive a benefit?”

Col, they shouldn’t be forced. They should have the right to say; ‘no, I don’t want the increase in wages that the union has just won thankyou’.

But if non-unionists accept union-won gains, then some form of payment should be appropriate.

Simple.

Col Rouge,

Spot on Col: "You have no agreement / contract with them. You are under no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay."

And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the boss to offer you the non-unionist the pay increases granted to union members?

And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the non-unionists to accept the pay increases granted to union members?

As one who has regularly advocated the self-help model on OLO you would agree, I take it, that you wouldn't want workers to get anything they hadn't worked for. We wouldn't want the hand-out mentality to creep back into the work-force would we Col?

Spikey “And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the non-unionists to accept the pay increases granted to union members?”

payments for service is made by the employer to the employee, regardless of the unions role in the matter.

If there is no contractual agreement between the employee and the union, then there is no obligation (legal or moral) for the employee to reward the union for any efforts the union deploys.

As I said recently on the “Value of a Kidney” thread:

“the historic supply of a kidney would be deemed "past performance" and ineligible for present "consideration" (payment), regardless he wants to have it "enforced" / considered now.”

So your question is meaningless and lacks the necessary elements to be validly applied to any employee / employer agreement.

“I take it, that you wouldn't want workers to get anything they hadn't worked for.”

I would presume the employer agrees with his employees, either collectively or individually, their individual worth and the employer awards a differential or greater amount to the more meritorious emploees, regardless of their union affiliation.

Your perspective of “a worker getting anything they had not worked for” is a pointless and irrelevant caveat.

Realistically a worker will be paid what they can “negotiate” (which nominally becomes what they are worth), regardless of the amount of “effort” or “Work” involved.

“We wouldn't want the hand-out mentality to creep back into the work-force would we Col?”

Those who seek merely to benefit from a ‘handout’ usually get what they are worth.

Those who understand the concept of reward for effort and “value based remuneration” usually find they are more greatly valued by their employer and consequently discover they are better rewarded.

I am talking from personal experience, rather than hypothetically and it is what has worked well for me, mind you my negotiated rate tends to be on the high side (I always emphasise the ‘added-value’ an employer gains from my effort).

It’s not rocket science

A principle exists here, I am unlikely to impress Col Rouge, in truth a great number will not agree with me.
But as evidence I truly believe what I say find the federal governments page for the ABBC.
I am involved in a campaign to get rid of it, but that page shows fines and case history's of workers being forced to join unions, not mine.
I find that ugly, but while the Cols of the world can look after themselves, so too can workers, many of them.
Who looks after the under skilled?
The fearful ones who never ask for fair wages?
Are we happy to have no equity for them?
In my view dumb actions of some unions, sometimes most unions, have damaged the whole movement.
But not forever, I see a future for moderates, those who talk first and second fight only as a last resort
Bosses do you know, bring such unions to their workplace.
Better outcomes come as a result, unions do not have the power to demand outcomes.
bargaining is about both sides being up front.
I grin, well laugh watching a bloke hand out news papers telling of problems in the Cuban country side.
And laugh again on following them into the lunch rooms to see the rubbish bins full and be invited to sit down and have a cuppa bloke.
Unions are not dead some are lost in a time warp but others are benefiting by picking up the refugees.