you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I would rather pass laws that protect the worker thus negating any need for unions and their extra fees.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    That would be nice, but the government is controlled by the same people who don't want you to unionize, so good luck.

    Besides unionized wages are higher, so those "fees" are more of an investment, with much higher returns than you'd typically get for investing only $700/year.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Unions would be useful even then, and if american history over the past decades is any indication, strong unions might be necessary to keep those laws too, lest capital use it's influence to erode them without an organized force to counter it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I live in Denmark, a country known for its great worker protection laws, and that is only because of the unions. I pay roughly 1000$ p.a and let me tell you one thing, that is the single greatest money I’ve ever spent. It is sort of a safetynet above the government one plus a lot of other things. Worker protection laws are great, but they won’t happen without your unions fighting for them.

  • source
  • parent