In other words, employees can monopolize the employer's hiring options, using anti-free-market laws inspired by the 'labour' movement and socialism.
If an employee doesn't want to work for a particular company, they have to find a different place to work. If an employee doesn't want to join a particular union, they have to find a different place to work. Why is the former reasonable but not the latter?
If an employer really wants to hire non-union labor, they can leave their company and join a different one that doesn't have a union. You're playing an interesting semantic trick here where you use "employee" to refer to the individual, but "employer" to refer to the company. You thereby paint the asymmetry as unfair, when in fact there's no expectation that they should be the same. Let's compare individuals to individuals (laborers to management, say) and groups to groups (companies to unions).
Why do the arguments against unions not also apply to companies? Give me something where if I replace "union" with "company" the result isn't an equally compelling argument against not letting employers organize collectively.
That's like saying that the role of elected officials is to represent their constituents and serve their interests, treating them all with full equality under the law.
It's a nice statement, but it's completely idealistic and doesn't accurately describe what actually happens in practice.
As an employer, the company is an organization you belong to which works to further your interests, and the union is an outside organization in a hopefully symbiotic relationship, where you provide them with things they want, and they provide you with things you want.
I am not saying that an employee has the same relationship with their union and their company. I'm saying that when you break it down into employee/employer and company/union, it becomes fairly symmetrical. Look at the individuals on both sides, and then at the organizations on both sides. If one side shouldn't band together, why should the other side do so?
This makes no sense. The employer shouldn't be forced to 'have a union'. It's not a voluntary relationship, and thus it totally violates the company owner's right to their own private property.
Unions as they exist today are rent-seeking organizations that prey on employers. No wonder investors invest in other countries, and companies outsource.
The parent has accurately described my experience, and I'm in the US.
