because the union gets to dictate terms, because they represent a collective of individuals.

IE like insurance companies

Hmm... but do they represent the individuals if they have no incentive to do that?

the reason Unions get to charge non-members

is cuz otherwise, you'd have people not sign up, but still benefit if the Union gets something positive for the workers

so you can't get freeloaders

but this way, yes its corruptable, cuz the union gets money no matter what

and they use that money for fancy things and campaign donations etc

Tim pool did talk about the union at one of the places he worked at.

Cant recall which but he di share those sentiments.

@GingaBomber yeah tim did a good job explaining the unions on vice were he used to work at

I believe this is the vid https://youtu.be/XVy5gCrm5UU

I thought sweden was far left when it came to unions but I had no idea that there are countries where non-union members have to pay.
As far as I know that is absolutely not the case in sweden

People that kind of brag that the union is unnecessary get a lot of critique from union members for freelancing, although half complain that they don't appreciate the past things the unions did, which imo is retarded because by that logic you must be a nazi if you use the autoban or like that it exists. Or think that the infrastructure in Germany is a good thing for trade or whatnot because the nazis got almost all of that started

unions are not bad, but they also have more power than they should

unions should not get to charge non-union members. If unions are necessary in any particular industry, people will join a union. if they have achieved their goal in balancing the power out, people will stop joining the union.

Why are unions necessary, and collective bargaining not enough?

I have only ever heard bad things about unions when people talk about when they were in a union

When I got an envelope telling me how I could sign up for the union at my work and read the cost I threw it in the trash.

well you would have to define what a union is.

if a group of people team up in a company, is that not a union? You have to be very careful to define what and what is not considered a union. Any group of people usually form a structure of leadership.

it is not

teaming up for the sake of negotiation is collective bargaining

Union is an organization

and when is the line crossed?

when the group teaming up gives itself a name?

Have administration and charge members

what if they didn't charge members, but accepted donations?

In that case would depend but leans away from being a typical Union

this is why i say you have to be careful what is and is not considered a union

Course, if it is something that accepts donations, sounds like it is highly susceptible to corruption

Isnt a Union just like an Alliance?

a group formed by individual units working towards a common goal?

any power structure is highly susceptible to corruption.

hence why people should be allowed to leave, and not forced to pay things if not involved.

in a workers Union, the goal is for fair treatment etc

European union has a goal of working together to improve overal status

etc?

Generally when people talk about unions they are talking about the ones with administrations and cost of admission

workers unions that is

and that is why they currently suck, at least in america.

but the idea of what is a "typical" union is probably different depending on cultures.

I'm talking about American

so, if you define a union as a collective of workers banding together in a group that expands outside any specific company, in an effort to remain connected and informed so they are not taken advantage of by their employer, then i say there can be times when they are necessary, but they are not always necessary.