Slashdot Mirror

There are many "right to work" states where you do not HAVE to join a union. Here are lists of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

If they are not "right to work" then you can assume that you are forced to join a union to get a unionized job.

So how did any of these special rules help the union here?

Didn't really help, except in the general sense of helping the unions keep power. But in part thanks to these, Hostess will take whatever steps needed to avoid dealing with unions ever again.

http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm

The rules only work on weak management

Not true. The special laws allowing unions to trespass on private property, to force workers to join, to force workers to pay dues, etc all "work" whether management is weak or strong.

Did the unions' goal of benefiting their members/employees succeed?

The unions did not help the Hostess workers, especially given the actions of a single union with ~6K members ended the jobs of all ~18K workers.

Challenge accepted.

Unemployment rates by state:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Right to work states:
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

23 states are right to work. 27 states and DC are not.

The average of the unemployment rates listed at your source for states designated right to work is 7.07%

The average of the unemployment rates listed at your source for states NOT designated right to work is 7.82%

Of the 25 states with the lowest unemployment, 13 are right to work states. Of the 25 states with the highest unemployment, 10 are right to work states.

All five of the states with the lowest unemployment are right to work states and none of them see their primary income from tourism. Only two of the states with the highest unemployment are right to work states and one of them (Nevada) lives and dies on a tourism market that goes very soft in a bad economy.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but there IS a pretty clear correlation between right to work and lower unemployment.

Got anything else to say clever guy?

Right-to-work is the principle is that no employee should ever be forced to join a union in order to get a job. What this means in practical terms is that both employer and employee can sever their relationship at any time for any cause. Typically, employers do offer probationary periods followed by more permanent arrangements, with this difference: during the probationary period, if the employee is fired, it often is put immediately into effect, whereas after probation, the employer typically gives advance notice, usually 2 weeks.

Just because the government doesn't dictate the terms of employment, however, don't think that all employees are at the mercy of their employers. Larger companies have to compete for talent, so they usually provide competitive termination benefits such as severance pay, assistance in finding another job, etc. Small businesses, however, typically run without the padding of these kinds of benefits.

It actually works out pretty well. Right-to-work states (most of the South and Mountain states) are generally considered more business-friendly, and typically weather things such as the current recession better than unionized states, IMHO.

http://www.nrtw.org/d/illegalpac.htm

In theory, you can opt out of some amount of union dues that are used for political purposes. How much theory and how much practice seems to be very very wide range.

This isn't really a first amendment issue. You have the right to free speech. They (potentially) have a right to fire you. Fortunately for the employees in this case, unlike Texas where I live, Alabama is a right to work state which would prevent the city in this case from firing an employee for personal comments unless they exposed internal state affairs http://www.nrtw.org/c/alrtwlaw.htm. IANAL.

It's important to sever the connection between unions and company environments. A good company can provide a good environment without a union. A bad company will find holes in the union deals, and exploit them until the next contract, driving costs up.

Be glad you don't have forced unions. There are some that aren't so lucky. Here (in the USA, in a non-right-to-work state), it's possible to enter an industry where the only choices are living in poverty or living in deeper poverty. If you join the union, you have to follow their rules for bargaining, which means you can't sell your labor for less than anyone else. If you don't join the union, you'll be making less (though have a job), but you still have to pay some of the union dues anyway.

There is effectively very little difference between what's mandated by labor laws and what's mandated by contract laws when there are unions involved. Unions have the power and money to pay lobbyists to influence laws.

Leisure time itself does not increase productivity. Leisure time often improves morale, and improved morale increases productivity. Personally, I'd rather see an employer voluntarily do other things to improve morale. If it makes sense for the company to offer much higher pay, that works. Paid vacation? Sure, but I won't take much. On-site child care? Of course. A weekly company-wide happy hour at the local bar, with pay? Why not? If that's the kind of thing that they need to do to attract the employees they want, why shouldn't a company offer anything they can afford to?

Again, I don't have any problem with labor unions inherently. I just don't like the excessive pressure they use to enforce their own particular idea of "good".

Unions are nothing more than big babysitters now.

They are a lot worse than that. Enterprises, whose explicit goals are maintaining and raising the prices of their members' services, what are they, but the cartels? Why is it, that most of the society wants pizzerias and plumbers to compete, but sympathize with workers, who want to stop competing? Why aren't they subject to the anti-trust laws?.. Why is it, that when their violent members break the law, they aren't treated under Federal anti-racketeering legislation?

They are objectively bad for economy and the country too... But most of all, they are illegal under the already-existing legislation — at least, under the spirit of it:

Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, has three main elements:

• prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
• banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
• supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

Actually, quite a few products are made by well paid people in western countries, precisely because they have unions.

Citation needed.

Not all unions are good, but many are.

I suppose, not all trusts were bad either, but the US has long-standing laws against them. What many fail to realize, is that trade unions are the same — trusts seeking to become monopolistic sources of their members' services. That they sometimes fight for that through highly illegal means, including violence ought to subject them to anti-racketeering laws as well...

Now, I am all for "freedom of association" — even if Senators McCain & Feingold aren't — and have no problems with collective bargaining per se. What I see as evil, however, are the legal advantages and protections, that unions enjoy even in our mostly free country...

Corporations don't lower their prices when they reduce their costs. They just pocket the money.

Fortunately, that is none of our business, is it?

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

Fortunately, nobody is forced to associate with corporations... I hear, the North Korea's and Cuba's borders are open to people wanting to move in... Quick, rush back to Chomsky's drivel to find a decent-sounding reason you are still here...

You choose to work

Great, then unions never force anyone to join them, because you have the choice to not join. It can't be slavery if you can walk away any time you like.

Are you saying that union membership is not mandatory because working is not mandatory? That there are some employers (or industries) that will force you to join a union, but that's ok because you can always choose not to work there?

Either there are instances where union membership is mandatory or there are not. Which is it?

I thought it was clear. There are two "unions" (which are not unions, but could argued to be) that I wanted to explicitly list as being forced membership to work (you can't practice medicine or law without being a member of the government-enforced professional organization). Otherwise, there exists no mandatory union of any kind anywhere in the US. What part of that is confusing?

What's confusing is pages like this:

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

That say that while you cannot be forced to join a union, you may be forced to pay fees to that union. Seems odd. And it reeks of compulsion, which is what I object to.

I think that compulsion is evil (in this sense I'm referring to mandatory union membership).

But what about taxes? Aren't those compulsory? And you dodged the question of where you are. Are there unions there? Are there taxes?

I live in New Zealand, and yes, we have compulsory taxation here. There are also unions here (which as I have said before is a good thing, so long as they are voluntary). I also consider compulsory taxation to be an attack on our liberties.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What about those that give up liberty for something other than safety? What about if the liberty isn't an Essential Liberty? You seem to be asserting all sorts of moral judgements about liberties, unions, and freedom by implying that the quote is relevant to unions. Where do you live, and what liberties do you give up to live there?

I have no problem with people giving up their liberties for something other than safety - that is their right. I object to my liberties being removed by majority vote. The only one that should be able to trade my liberties is myself, not anyone else. I consider a system that allows one man to dilute another man's primary freedoms as a fundamentally flawed system.

You must be kidding. See: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm -- 22 states apply.
You can be fired/let go from any company in any one of these states for no reason whatsoever.
If anything, at *every* company I've been to they are all running short of people, and every person there far overloaded with responsibilities they could ever possibly get accomplished. I consulted in IT from 1994 forward, so I've seen the good and the bad times - good times never changed the "fatness" of the organization.

Yes, it is.

And the two ("at-will" and "right-to-work") are not mutually exclusive. Right-to-work laws are usually related union membership. However, Virginia also has a lawthat forbids employers from trying to prevent former employees from seeking employment elsewhere. You'd have to ask a lawyer how that relates to non-competes.

I don't want to count my work hours -- I'll take flexibility over 40-hours max

Show me any well-paying IT job, where you are able to work 40 hours or less per week. If it's your's, congrats - your situation is more rare than mine.

I don't want a pension -- I'd take higher pay over an employer-funded plan that prevents me from changing jobs

My pay doesn't suffer - I make the same as other senior level systems folks in the industry. More, if I choose to work OT.

I don't want my employer to control my investment plans -- I'd take higher pay over an employer-funded plan that prevents me from changing jobs

They don't control my plans - I do. Plenty of choices, including individual stocks if I wish. If I chose to leave, I could roll over the money to IRA's, or leave them in the plan and continue to manage the existing funds.

I don't want my employer to control my health plan...

We've three choices, one fully paid. Continues into retirement. Far better rates than anyone could do on their own. Yeah...that sucks.

I don't want paid vacation time -- I'd take higher pay and unpaided leave instead

I've already addressed the pay issue. Now, how many employers offer over a month of compensated time off, plus sick days to start? Not to mention, we have the choice of getting paid OT, or taking 1.5x comp time instead.

So now that we've established that unions don't do what everyone wants, and in fact can damage the ability of employes to seek out new and better employment because they'd lose employer-controlled deferred compensation, can we stop trying to force people into them?

Nobody forces you to join a union, nor take a union represented job. And while some states allow mandatory union payments for represented positions (something I'm against), many don't - see NRTW.org for more details. And, you can NOT be forced to be a union member - in any state.

Depending on your perspective, union membership is just another perk or deficit of an employment opportunity - nothing else. Nobody forces you to take the job, there are plenty of alternatives.

That's not the case everywhere.

One wonders how this kind of thing happens. School boards have a range of non-curricular obligations, and aren't really tasked with curriculum at all. I recently had a chance to interview some of the people running for the local school board. I was part of a committee and asked two questions: 1) How does the candidate separate "general policy" from micromanagement? Most of the candidates made that distinction and I wanted to know how exactly they did it. A couple of them said they didn't want to micromanage but then described what they would do and it was micromanagement. So that was odd. Related to this question was number 2 "Do you feel that it is the board's role to promote any particular cultural values?" The candidates all said no, but one of them had included a transcript of some questions another community group had asked him. He said he thought there should be one Biology course with evolution and a different, separate course with Intelligent Design. In the interview, he didn't go that far, saying only that he didn't have a problem with ID in bio classes. Some other candidates said they didn't mind ID in a social studies class, or the Bible as literature, which was more than I expected. The guy who wants two Bio classes goes to Liberty University in their Distance Learning program. It's a project they give to their undergraduates: get elected to local office and start pushing the Liberty University agenda.

We were interviewing to determine the union endorsee. In his district he'll run unopposed if he wins the primary so it was an important decision. We can do things like this and our endorsement does count for something around here because Maryland isn't a "Right-to-Work" state like Florida.

My understanding is that any venue large enough for a major touring act to play (Madonna would qualify I suspect) is most likely an AFM signatory.

I'm not completely sure how they can enforce that here, considering that Texas is a "right to work" state ( http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm ). Then again, IANAL to the nth degree.

I do know that there is no hard and fast rule as to which venues are signatories and which aren't. The smaller the venue, the larger the chance that they don't have an agreement.

None of those things apply if your employment is "at will" and/or if you're in a right to work" state. They can let you go for any reason or no reason at all with little or no notice and can do so perfectly legally.

In other countries, unions can exist regardless of the employers' opinion. If they don't like them, tough luck. In such countries, labor unions are protected by law.

I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits

A trade union is a monopoly. A trust concerning itself with (mostly — anti-competitive) efforts towards maintaining and ever increasing the prices of its members product (labor).

Nobody likes monopolies — the sooner you are busted with RICO and other anti-trust laws, the better. Your corruption and violence have made you far less likable, than most corporations are or deserve to be.

Those, who have grown up in a Soviet Union and similar countries, have particular dislike for trade unions — workers' solidarity, May 1st, class warfare... As far as I am concerned, for example, your sorry Socialist union-official neck belongs on a lamp-post... Nothing personal.

Those (truly) poor, who wish to immigrate to this country to work, are appalled by your arguing, that Americans are, somehow (by birthright?), entitled to better jobs, than Mexicans or Thais or Uzbeks.

And all — including the natively born and raised Americans — still remember the crookery surrounding the name "Hoffa", and the recent NYC-transit strike. We are all wondering, for example, why using the electronic EZ-Pass is only $0.5 cheaper, than going through a unionized toll-collector (EZ-Pass would've fazed those bums out, so extra is being collected for your undeserved pensions). Etc.

I do strongly dislike Microsoft. But:

• it is possible to not buy them;
• they don't slash anybody's tires;
• they don't beat the competition up on the street;

Much like the Luddite's of the past, you tend to stand in the way of progress — except now you phrase yourself differently. Instead of the honest "this will eliminate my job", you are lying: "it is not safe" (witness the union opposition against automated subway trains, for example).

Got the idea, on where the subject comes from, yet?

If you are working in Texas, you the priviledge in that Texas is a "employment at will"(PDF) state. The implications are that you can work, or not work, when you want to. That doesn't mean your boss has to keep your employed, but it means they can't stop you from leaving either (and unions can't stop you from working, too).

From the PDF link above:

Q: Does an employer need to provide an employee with the reason for terminating him/her?
A: The Texas Payday Law does not address the issue of termination. Texas, however, is as an "employment at will" state. This means that the employment relationship between employer and employee exists by the agreement of both parties. This gives the employee the right to quit at any time or for the employer to terminate the employee at any time and for any legal reason

If I were you, I would have your lawyer look into whether this company has a history of such litigation. If so, I would have your lawyer counter sue, for a lot of money, for legal harassment. This is in light of the "employment at will" and previous behavior.

In the US, all unions are wings of one particular political party, and their primary function is to raise funds for the party through forced "donations." These unions aren't really about advocating for the worker: they always are spending money fighting against workers.

You poor, sad, horribly-mistaken individual....snipped rant on the travails of teaching...

I have no sympathy when I hear these pity fests for teachers. The teachers are the ones who let the NEA (National Education Association, a national teacher's union where membership is mandatory for those who do not live in right-to-work states) walk all over the teachers who want to do good, and the NEA and education bureaucrats/administration have more say over the quality (or lack thereof) of education than the teachers. The execrable state of the NEA and education bureaucrats/administration would not exist if the status quo wasn't supported by a majority of teachers. The teachers may have shitty working conditions, but the bulk of them brought it upon themselves by consistently voting as a powerful bloc for the legislation and systems that brought about those very conditions in the first place. I'm a rabid free market advocate, but the situation is so bad in the U.S. that even I would compromise on just allowing school choice. Convert to a system like Belgium's where the students and parents get to pick the school, the public funds follow them to that school, and teachers allowed to be free agents, and you will see the good teachers and schools rewarded commensurately.

It gets even worse at the high school level. I went to a small, private school and even there, we had students who simply refused to put any effort into a given class...

You simply went to a private school that cared more for the tuition bucks than actually upholding their standards (and letting the tuition bucks take care of themselves...there is always a ready market of parents willing to pay a fair amount for high-quality education). I went to a private school as well; the kinds of troublemakers you saw in your school were treated differently where I went. They were given appropriate warning(s) depending on the severity of the infraction, then kicked out. The threshhold of the number of warnings was quite low. An expectation that students knew what was flat-out not tolerated was considered sufficient warning.

Caught with pot? Very strong words. Wrong attitude during the lecture? Out on your ass. Caught with hard drugs? Out on your ass, no warning. Caught disrupting other students during chapel services (this was a parochial school, but the religious education was very limited...yes, evolution was taught)? One kid did that two times to others and me, had a lecture after each time, then the third time he tried was summarily yanked out of the middle of chapel service and kicked out the same day. There was a long waiting list for empty spots, and very grateful students and parents willing to take those spots whenever they opened up. My school had no hesitation in weeding out the troublemakers. Even legacies (students whose parents were alumni, and often quite generous donors) were not exempt from disciplinary action and dismissal; the school finances were conservatively managed, and took donations and endowments without those sorts of strings. Tuition and board was a low five figures per year, so while high it wasn't like the elite schools like Andover-Exeter. Despite its lack of an elite status, it was still no problem for the school to attract and retain students with no discipline problems.

The term "Right to work" does not mean that. The term "Right to work" means that you cannot be forced to join a union.

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

The unions in Hollywood suck. As someone who knows people on both sides of the situation - union members and film producers - I have heard little good about them. They are just a way to lock some people out of the industry, particularly the people who would help the industry the most - new talent. On both sides of the equation; try producing an indie film in Hollywood, you pretty much have to get non-union actors and a non-union crew, which enormously complicates things.

Unions inevitably lead to inefficiency everywhere they rise up, particularly in the creative industries. Hollywood still does well because people still want entertainment - it works DESPITE the unions, not because of them. I don't like exclusivity schemes of any kind, just for the sake of making a buck. That is the way the lives and dreams of many are crushed. If anyone in the software industry here wants to unionize, they can count me out - and you can be damn sure I'll be moving to a Right To Work state.

I wonder how the software industry climate in New Hampshire is this time of year...

I guess a lie as good as the truth sometimes huh?

Al Franken, is that you?

Actual link about union violence #1
Actual link about union violence #2
Actual link about union violence #3
Actual link about union violence #4

Liar.

Well, if she's a union member, that's likely true - an association you join voluntarily would probably have the presumed permission of its members to spend their dues however its leadership sees fit.

However - if your wife resigns from the union and becomes an agency shop member, she would be able to not only demand the "political" percentage of her money back, but also the proportion of her dues spent on organizing other employees into new union shops.

It is illegal (even in a "closed shop" bargaining unit) to force people to join the union or coerce those who choose not to do so. A "happy medium" is what many refer to as the "fair share" employee, who pays for the cost of collective bargaining and grievance representation but not union organization and political campaigns. A quick google search revealed this FAQ that looks pretty succinct but correct.

For more on your rights NOT to join or support a union any more than necessary, check out the National Right to Work Foundation. The National Labor Relations Board also has lots of great material available online.

Also, remember that you don't have to be a unionized employee to gain protection under the Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Any employee acting in concert with another (or others - called "concerted activity") for the mutual aid and protection of employees is protected from unlawful interference in their choices to act collectively.

I do not know about you, but it has been proven to me on numerous occasions that it is easy to fire anyone in the USA. Now it may be that certain union workers -The Teamsters- might be able to get away with that, but I live in a right to work state, and here they are considered mostly a joke.

A quick googling produces this link. Good site to check before moving.

The biggest reason unions have such a bad name is because corporations have much larger marketing departments.

Well, unions may have a bad name, but that doesn't seem to stop them from receiving special treatment from the government.

Labor union officials enjoy many extraordinary powers and immunities that were created by legislatures and the courts. Union officials claim to rely on the support of rank-and-file workers. Yet, they clamor in the political arena to secure and expand their government-granted powers, including the powers to shake down workers for financial support and even to wage campaigns of violent retaliation against non-union employees.

The following list of special privileges reveals the extent to which union bosses have rigged our nation's labor laws in their favor.

Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.

Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.

Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.

Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.

Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!

Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.

Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts)

Well, what if I personally *don't* want to deal with unions? What then?

Screw the corps and the unions. If they mess with me, I move on, instead of holding a grudge or a slew of chips on my shoulders.

Unions will only bring a continuing bout of unnecessary bureaucracy and we will see more illegal manoeuvrings regardless of what organizations are involved. Europeans gleam with joy about orgs like the United Nations, when looked under the microscope--as all do against the United States--you only find the same rot.

As for me, when I see more of these types of cases, I won't be surprised.

Someone else brought this up elsewhere, I think it was the Yahoo! SCOX boards. Personally, I don't think McBride will have grounds to sue SCO/Canopy.

* McBride sued IKON
* IKON is based out of Pennsylvania
* Pennsylvania is not a "right-to-work" state.
* SCOG is based out of Utah
* Utah is a right to work state.

According to all I've read, McBride sued IKON for unfair compensation packages. Now,I may be wrong, but I'd bet that such things are affected by the "at-will" employment status in these states. In other words, you can't sue an employer for wrongful termination in these states; I'd almost bet that similar things apply to compensation packages and the like.

In other words - McBride may have gotten away with suing IKON, but I don't know that he'd be so successful with this strategy in a RTWS.

Clarification by others who are more knowledgeable regarding these matters would be appreciated.

IANAL but the effectiveness of unionizing depends on what state the poster is in, unions in right to work states have considerably less teeth than states without right to work legislation. The problem for unions in RTW states is that "scabs" are effectively legal since membership in the union is not mandatory. More info is available here. So you can strike, but you can also be permanently replaced at the same time. You can get a current list of RTW states here. I have mixed emotions about unions myself so I can't comment either way.

Here it is pal, look at privilege number 2 and you'll find out. And yes this is in America

I'm forming a union.

Anyone want to join?

I can't wait! Look at the benefits:

(from http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges .htm)

"Privilege #1: Exemption from prosecution for union violence.
The most egregious example of organized labor's special privileges and immunities is the 1973 United States v. Enmons decision. In it, the United States Supreme Court held that union violence is exempted from the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion. As a result, thousands of incidents of violent assaults (directed mostly against workers) by union militants have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, many states also restrict the authority of law enforcement to enforce laws during strikes.

Privilege #2: Exemption from anti-monopoly laws.
The Clayton Act of 1914 exempts unions from anti-monopoly laws, enabling union officials to forcibly drive out independent or alternative employee bargaining groups.

Privilege #3: Power to force employees to accept unwanted union representation.
Monopoly bargaining, or "exclusive representation," which is embedded in most of the country's labor relations statutes, enables union officials to act as the exclusive bargaining agents of all employees at a unionized workplace, thereby depriving employees of the right to make their own employment contracts. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, the Federal Labor Relations Act (FLRA) of 1978, and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) of 1926 prohibit employees from negotiating their own contracts with their employers or choosing their own workplace representatives.

Privilege #4: Power to collect forced union dues.
Unlike other private organizations, unions can compel individuals to support them financially. In 28 states under the NLRA (those that have not passed Right to Work laws), all states under the RLA, on "exclusive federal enclaves," and in many states under public sector labor relations acts, employees may be forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if they reject union affiliation.

Privilege #5: Unlimited, undisclosed electioneering.
The Federal Election Campaign Act exempts unions from its limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, as well as some of its reporting requirements. Union bigwigs can spend unlimited amounts on communications to members and their families in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office, and they need not report these expenditures if they successfully claim that union publications are primarily devoted to other subjects. For years, the politically active National Education Association (NEA) teacher union has gotten away with claiming zero political expenditures on its IRS tax forms!

Privilege #6: Ability to strong-arm employers into negotiations.
Unlike all other parties in the economic marketplace, union officials can compel employers to bargain with them. The NLRA, FLRA, and RLA make it illegal for employers to resist a union's collective bargaining efforts and difficult for them to counter aggressive and deceptive campaigns waged by union organizers.

Privilege #7: Right to trespass on an employer's private property.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 (and state anti-injunction acts) give union activists immunity from injunctions against trespass on an employer's property.

Privilege #8: Ability of strikers to keep jobs despite refusing to work.
Unlike other employees, unionized employees in the private sector have the right to strike; that is, to refuse to work while keeping their job. In some cases, it is illegal for employers to hire replacement workers, even to avert bankruptcy. Meanwhile, union officials demonize replacement workers as "scabs" to set them up for retaliation.

Privilege #9: Union-only cartels on construction projects.
Under so-called project labor agreements, governments (local, state, or federal) award contracts for construction on major projects such as highways, airports, and stadiums exclusively to unionized firms. Such practices effectively lock-out qualified contractors and employees who refuse to submit to exclusive union bargaining, forced union dues, and wasteful union work rules. So far, just three states have outlawed these discriminatory and costly union-only pacts.

Privilege #10: Government funding of forced unionism.
On top of all of the special powers and immunities granted to organized labor, politicians even pour taxpayer money straight into union coffers. Union groups receive upwards of $160 million annually in direct federal grants. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. In 2001, the federal Department of Labor doled out $148 million for "international labor programs" overwhelmingly controlled by an AFL-CIO front group. Federal bureaucrats spend approximately $2.6 billion per year on "job training programs" that, under the Workforce Investment Act, must be administered by boards filled with union officials. Union bosses also benefit from a plethora of state and local government giveaways."

Interestingly enough most of the Southern States here in the US have "right to work" laws". YMMV from state to state the laws are different but the essence is that you can't be forced to join a union in order to have a job. This doesn't mean that unions don't exist, or that by not joining a union you arn't affected by collective barganing etc..

I don't make up the terminology..... Take a look at this:
Right to Work States