A great deal for certain union barons, no doubt, who can act as a middleman cartel .
No union ever forced someone to accept a job they didn't want. If you had a contract you'd know exactly what the terms are and you'd be entirely free to accept them or not.
Also, while I'm sure your default position is "union bad!" and that you're unlikely to change that view, I'd remind you that union employees are not powerless slaves to "union barons". If a union isn't serving the needs of its members they can vote out union leadership or in extreme cases even disband the union and form a new one that will better support them.
You see how ridiculous that sounds when you don't treat unions as some special form of supplier that doesn't get to negotiate in groups, right?
I’d also like to point out that you needed to have this framed in the context of a union negotiating the same way as a company before you were ok with it. Why the visceral reaction to unions but none for companies?
If the company and employee have choice to choose union/non union I have no problem with it. The visceral reaction was to denial of employment by mutual consent.
While in theory union employees can change their leadership, in practice, that appears to be extremely difficult, and I don't think you can make a case that the UAW was serving the needs of its members for at least the 20 years preceding Fain.
That's not to say unions are bad, but it's a more complex picture than you're painting.
I can't say that I'm intimately familiar with the UAW although on the whole it seems to have been an extremely successful union. Was there a large effort to oust Rory Gamble before the corruption scandal came to light?
There's no denying that union leadership was corrupt and that members were hurt by that. The last 20 years saw some major concessions to the auto industry, some of it due to self-serving leadership that was caught colluding with industry executives and some of it due to the failing industry itself which needed a massive government bailout in that same time period.
I will say that all of that didn't stop many people from claiming that the union was being far too good for the employees, so good that the workers were supposedly "highly overpaid" and responsible for driving the industry into the ground. Even trump complained at the time of the bailout about autoworkers getting raises ("They get their little five percent. They get another two percent. They get another three percent, four percent ... and all of a sudden they're making more money than the people that own the company.") Even a union at its worst and weakest is still too good for some people I guess.
Your race to the bottom can affect others, regardless of wether or not you recognize negative externalities exist.
There are some behaviors that are banned because paradoxically by allowing you the liberty to do that, everyone’s liberty is negatively affected.
I am having a hard believing you’re acting in good faith if you’re arguing it’s immoral that you can’t sell yourself into slavery