Marvell wrote:So - you would rather negotiate on your behalf rather than negotiating collectively throught a union. Do you get to choose who represents the company / government entity? Of course not. The company puts forward a negotiator, and you have to negotiate with them; it's not a matter of choice, and why would it? Imagine if there was no official representative of the employing entity: who would ever know who spoke for them?
Patently obvious, right? So how is it suddenly different when it comes to labor?
The company gets to pick who represents it as an entity. Why would anyone else have a say in that? The worker in this scenario on the other hand does not get to chose for themselves who is going to represent them but rather has had the role selected for them prior to ever entering into employment or membership in the union.
Your implication is that a person shouldn't have the choice as to who is representing them, and that was my whole point in the first place. Businesses have more choices in their affiliations than workers under a union contract.
Marvell wrote:Also, the 'fair share' requirement is based on the not-unreasonable position that, if you have benefited economically from the collective bargaining efforts of the union, then you should compensate the union for the effort they took on your behalf.
Agreed, my point remains however that you don't have the choice in taking those benefits rather than attempting to negotiate a better deal on your own.