Many State legislatures trying to Consolidate Power By Weakening Unions

[Fugus]

There are good unions, and then there are very very bad ones.

Honestly they should have ZERO influence on politics. All money a Union collects should only go back to the individuals. No sharks, no administrative fees, no forcing people to strike. Every dollar collected goes into a fund and back to each worker who needs it and/or the Union Board. And to be on the board you have to work for that company you represent. This should be the norm for every union.

I could agree with this the moment they also apply that to all companies, pacs, and superpacs. Till then, they are basically the workers offsets to them.

I personally advocate for public funding of elections where no group or individual is allowed to donate and they are not allowed to self fund either and all the candidates must manage that same amount of cash. And the only ones exempt from this self funding and donations would be those who did not qualify for public funding and even they were capped at the same amount that the others got through public funding.

[Machismo]

There isn't any Law the forces people to join a Union. At least none I have ever heard of.

And right to work laws don't actually force people to join unions, that is why they are also known as right to freeload laws because they force the unions to provide for them without requiring they actually join the union.

And I never said that people should be obligated to pay a union, I said if they join a Union shop they should be and if they don't want to be in a union then find another job that doesn't have a union shop and that the states can't bar the unions from having a membership requirement with the employer.

You aren't being forced into bargaining with unions, just don't join a union shop, problem solved. Or make it where you can't profit off the union activity either.

And your solution isn't a solution because it doesn't address the issues and ignores the situation entirely for your idealized version of it.

I don't want to make unions involuntary, I am not requiring all jobs go union at all, you still have the option to apply to any of those non-union jobs but don't go to a union shop and then ask to special treatment because you don't want to join but still have no issues getting all the benefits they fought for.

If you think that there should not be any government involvement, then you agree that right to work (AKA Right to Freeload) laws must go and the unions should reserve the right to negotiate with companies to have the employees be union within that place of business.

You are forcing the unions to support the moochers by denying them the ability to deal with them by forcing the unions to give them the benefits of a union while they don't have to pay for the fight.

You don't want to join a union, then don't work for a union shop. That simple, go find another job that isn't union. No one is forcing you to work there.

Then how would someone be required to join a union, or pay dues if they do not wish to be a part of it?

Of course right-to work laws don't force people to join unions... nor do they force unions to provide for them... Now you are just making stuff up.

The issue arises when certain occupations are required to be a union shop, get rid of them. If an employer wants it, good for them. Once again, no law is actually required. The basis of whether something is a "union shop" should be totally at the discretion of the employer.

I AM NOT FORCING UNIONS TO DO SHIT. At this point, you are flat out lying. If you think I want to force unions to do anything, then you are not reading. I have explicitly stated multiple times that I don't want to force unions to do a fucking thing.

My solution is to let the free markets sort themselves out. It requires zero government involvement, and everyone is doing what they want of their own free will. Nobody is forced to do something for others. You may not like that solution, but that doesn't actually mean it's not a solution. If a company wants to be a "union shop" they are free to do so. No occupation should be forced to have union employees.

Once again. not once have I said unions should be forced to give the same benefits to non-union employees. You keep saying it, but you are wrong. You will continue to say it, and you will continue to be wrong. Force requires government intervention. I support no government intervention on the matters of employers, employees, and unions. So I cannot be forcing anything.

What you don't seem to want, is for companies to stop being "union shops." I don't care if a company is a "union shop" or not, so long as there is no government rules forcing it to be one.

[Fugus]

snip

Without the right to work laws, they still aren't required to work in a union. Just don't join a union shop. It is just that simple.

And I never knew that non-union workers at a union shop didn't get the wages and such benefits that the unions fought for. That is news to me.

YOU ARE FORCING UNIONS TO DO SHIT as the non union workers in that company still benefit from them without paying so you are forcing the unions to drag them with them instead of letting them fend for themselves.

And you keep relying on the mythical free market that doesn't self regulate, goes off the rails regularly without outside help and will leave the workers literally dead without safeguards in place. Sorry but you are worshiping a unicorn. Come back to reality with actual solutions that work here in the real world. Even the free market isn't entirely free because of its limitations.

But let me get this straight. You are saying that if the Union negotiated a $11 minimum wage for its workers that the non-union workers would still start at the previous wage before it was negotiated and that the employer wouldn't give it to them to? You are saying that if the Union negotiated for 2 weeks of vacation time instead of 1 week, the employers would leave the non-union at the 1 week while the union got 2 weeks? Sorry but that doesn't happen that I have heard of on any appreciable scale.

You might not have said that Unions should be forced to give them benefits but that doesn't change the fact that in the setup we have they are.

And there is not rules forcing you to join a union shop, you can go work anywhere you want, but if you want to work a union shop, be prepared to join the union. If you want to join a union, don't be looking to join a non-union shop. Just that simple.

[Kellhound]

If the employees are weak minded, that is even more of a reason to have a union to fight on their behalf. Not only for the collective bargaining for them but also to keep them from being taken advantage of by employers trying to get over.

These right to freeload laws honestly are crap and allow scabs to profit off unions without supporting them till they collapse due to lack of funding which was the entire point.

And as far as the unions being banned from donating to political causes, I am in complete agreement so long as PACs, SuperPACs and all donations are banned as well and the entire thing is changed into a publicly funded campaign where no one can pay for their campaigns and they can not self fund their campaign either and the only ones exempted from the donations and self funding ban would be those who polled too low to qualify for the public funding and even they would be capped at the self funding levels.

They shouldn't be able to sell out for funding while they are in and if they can't manage the money they are given in their campaign, how can we expect them to manage the finances of a nation.

It should come down to the will of voters, not the will of the donors and their ability to drown out the other guys with money.

The weak minded deserve nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Hired goons come knocking. The US in particular has a very bloody and violent labor history.

Unions function because the core principle behind them is solidarity. Right to work legislation is a balatant attack at this core principle. It is intended to promote division.

Division is a requirement for freedom.

[Fugus]

The weak minded deserve nothing.

Sure thing Orlong......

[Glorious Leader]

The weak minded deserve nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



Division is a requirement for freedom.

Division is a requirement for exploitation. Solidarity is the requirement for freedom of the masses.

[Kellhound]

Sure thing Orlong......

I have no sympathy for the stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Division is a requirement for exploitation. Solidarity is the requirement for freedom of the masses.

I take freedom of choice over conforming. If the weak minded sheep are exploited, that is their own fault.

[Glorious Leader]

I have no sympathy for the stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



I take freedom of choice over conforming. If the weak minded sheep are exploited, that is their own fault.

Yea of course. Class and power struggle doesnt exist. Historical context doesnt exist. Everyman is Galt.

[Fugus]

I have no sympathy for the stupid.

Whether you have sympathy for them or not is beside the point. I have had to deal with Stupid people my whole life but that doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of and left for dead. Especially when many of them became stupid due to listening to what they were told and being lied to their whole life about shit.

The dumbest people I typically see are stupid because they were brought up in religious households or ones that treat their political views like a religion and refuse to even look at anything that contradicts it. Same with friends who grew up with money and doesn't understand the life of having little to none of it.

And sorry, I would rather the stupid be taken care of and get what they earned rather than have them stupid and desperate and then turn violent over it trying to survive because an asshole with no sympathy tried to screw them over or risk having that stupid guy kill that asshole for screwing him over.

[Machismo]

Without the right to work laws, they still aren't required to work in a union. Just don't join a union shop. It is just that simple.

And I never knew that non-union workers at a union shop didn't get the wages and such benefits that the unions fought for. That is news to me.

YOU ARE FORCING UNIONS TO DO SHIT as the non union workers in that company still benefit from them without paying so you are forcing the unions to drag them with them instead of letting them fend for themselves.

And you keep relying on the mythical free market that doesn't self regulate, goes off the rails regularly without outside help and will leave the workers literally dead without safeguards in place. Sorry but you are worshiping a unicorn. Come back to reality with actual solutions that work here in the real world. Even the free market isn't entirely free because of its limitations.

But let me get this straight. You are saying that if the Union negotiated a $11 minimum wage for its workers that the non-union workers would still start at the previous wage before it was negotiated and that the employer wouldn't give it to them to? You are saying that if the Union negotiated for 2 weeks of vacation time instead of 1 week, the employers would leave the non-union at the 1 week while the union got 2 weeks? Sorry but that doesn't happen that I have heard of on any appreciable scale.

You might not have said that Unions should be forced to give them benefits but that doesn't change the fact that in the setup we have they are.

And there is not rules forcing you to join a union shop, you can go work anywhere you want, but if you want to work a union shop, be prepared to join the union. If you want to join a union, don't be looking to join a non-union shop. Just that simple.

Then get rid of things like the Wagner Act, that set up state-defined things like "union shops."

I have no need for right-to-work laws, as I see them to be unnecessary. I also have no need for laws that force companies to define themselves.

Since I support no laws on the issue, I cannot be forcing anyone to do anything. There is no threat of government involvement, so there is no force. It's a pretty simple concept.

Once again, you are calling for the use of force, your opposition to the free markets proves it. You can claim that I am trying to force people to do something, but until you see me supporting a law (government intervention), or personally threatening with a gun, then I'm not forcing anything.

If a union negotiates with an employer, it would seem wise to negotiate only for union employees. Otherwise, there's no incentive to join the union, and the union is negotiating poorly. Once again, that's not my problem, and it sure as hell isn't my fault. You still have been unable to show where I support forcing them to negotiate for non-union employees.

There is a rule about the terms for "union shops." Get rid of the law that defines them. Otherwise, you are asking for government intervention. If a company only wishes to hire union employees, good for them. If they negotiate with a union to only hire union employees, good for them. I have no desire to get in the middle of that. But, if you want to whine about the government getting involved with right-to-work laws, then you also should whine about the government getting involved with the Wagner Act of 1935. I say you get rid of them all, enough of that pesky government intervention and meddling, right?

[Kellhound]

Yea of course. Class and power struggle doesnt exist. Historical context doesnt exist. Everyman is Galt.

Humanity is, and always has been, divided by the exploiter and the exploitee. Those willing to be exploited do not have my sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether you have sympathy for them or not is beside the point. I have had to deal with Stupid people my whole life but that doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of and left for dead. Especially when many of them became stupid due to listening to what they were told and being lied to their whole life about shit.

The dumbest people I typically see are stupid because they were brought up in religious households or ones that treat their political views like a religion and refuse to even look at anything that contradicts it. Same with friends who grew up with money and doesn't understand the life of having little to none of it.

And sorry, I would rather the stupid be taken care of and get what they earned rather than have them stupid and desperate and then turn violent over it trying to survive because an asshole with no sympathy tried to screw them over or risk having that stupid guy kill that asshole for screwing him over.

No, what you want is the stupid people exploited by people you agree with.

[Fugus]

Snip

From what I have read, the Wagner Act was important in protecting workers rights as it is one of the main things that actually gave the unions any teeth in the matter as it forced the companies to actually take them seriously instead of ignoring them and just firing them all whenever their was a dispute without ever coming to the table for anything or interfering with their activities. It is what forced them to come to the table with their labor to negotiate. Without it, the Unions have no power, especially in an economy like today where they can literally fire 1000 people and have them all replaced within a week or so because there are just that many people in need of work and not enough jobs to go around.

Glad to see we are both in agreement about the right to work laws as that was one of the only things I was trying to focus on on this one.

And again, I am not calling for force and my opposition to the free market isn't because of force it is because there are many things where a free market can not function in and I know that limitation along with the limitations about it not self regulating as well. I am saying that you are trying to force people to do something when you are denying them the right to do something else. If you have fews options and you deny them one of them, you are by proxy forcing them to take the other ones.

And again, will repeat this part:

But let me get this straight. You are saying that if the Union negotiated a $11 minimum wage for its workers that the non-union workers would still start at the previous wage before it was negotiated and that the employer wouldn't give it to them to? You are saying that if the Union negotiated for 2 weeks of vacation time instead of 1 week, the employers would leave the non-union at the 1 week while the union got 2 weeks? Sorry but that doesn't happen that I have heard of on any appreciable scale.

And you are asking for the repeal of the only things that give Unions any power. Asking for government intervention to protect the people is not the same thing as asking for the government to deny them the ability to negotiate.

Without that act, the Union has no power to enforce the terms against the employer if they violate them.

If you want to get rid of the Wagner Act, what do you propose the Unions do to still have any power when negotiating with the employers?

Good timing too, was about to log out. On that note, going to log for now but will check back later to read your response.

- - - Updated - - -

No, what you want is the stupid people exploited by people you agree with.

No, I don't want the stupid people exploited at all, whether from people I agree with or not. If they earned something, they earned it and don't deserve to be conned anymore than the next person as no matter how smart you personally think you are, there will always be someone able to play you for a fool if you come across them.

[Glorious Leader]

Humanity is, and always has been, divided by the exploiter and the exploitee. Those willing to be exploited do not have my sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -

But the exploiter does?

[Machismo]

From what I have read, the Wagner Act was important in protecting workers rights as it is one of the main things that actually gave the unions any teeth in the matter as it forced the companies to actually take them seriously instead of ignoring them and just firing them all whenever their was a dispute without ever coming to the table for anything or interfering with their activities. It is what forced them to come to the table with their labor to negotiate. Without it, the Unions have no power, especially in an economy like today where they can literally fire 1000 people and have them all replaced within a week or so because there are just that many people in need of work and not enough jobs to go around.

Glad to see we are both in agreement about the right to work laws as that was one of the only things I was trying to focus on on this one.

And again, I am not calling for force and my opposition to the free market isn't because of force it is because there are many things where a free market can not function in and I know that limitation along with the limitations about it not self regulating as well. I am saying that you are trying to force people to do something when you are denying them the right to do something else. If you have fews options and you deny them one of them, you are by proxy forcing them to take the other ones.

And again, will repeat this part:

But let me get this straight. You are saying that if the Union negotiated a $11 minimum wage for its workers that the non-union workers would still start at the previous wage before it was negotiated and that the employer wouldn't give it to them to? You are saying that if the Union negotiated for 2 weeks of vacation time instead of 1 week, the employers would leave the non-union at the 1 week while the union got 2 weeks? Sorry but that doesn't happen that I have heard of on any appreciable scale.

And you are asking for the repeal of the only things that give Unions any power. Asking for government intervention to protect the people is not the same thing as asking for the government to deny them the ability to negotiate.

Without that act, the Union has no power to enforce the terms against the employer if they violate them.

If you want to get rid of the Wagner Act, what do you propose the Unions do to still have any power when negotiating with the employers?

Good timing too, was about to log out. On that note, going to log for now but will check back later to read your response.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I don't want the stupid people exploited at all, whether from people I agree with or not. If they earned something, they earned it and don't deserve to be conned anymore than the next person as no matter how smart you personally think you are, there will always be someone able to play you for a fool if you come across them.

If you want to focus on one thing, then you should focus on the causes as to why right-to-work laws are put into place. If you oppose the government getting involved, then you should be consistent. The Wagner Act went very far to interfering in the daily running of companies. It helped create the standard of "union shops." If the Wagner Act goes away, many union shops disappear. I'm fine with that, because that's less government meddling where it simply does not belong.

The government is force, that's its entire point. By asking government to be involved, you are asking for force. I see no reason for right-to-work laws, because I find them to be inherently unnecessary. The same goes for things like the Wagner Act. I do not support them, either. I want the government out of business, and I'm damn consistent about it.

If both sides voluntarily want a government entity to oversee and enforce an agreement they make, fine. The Wagner Act does not fit that bill. Neither does a right-to-work law that bans union shops. They are both cut from the same cloth, just by different people, for different reasons. Of course, there's also another solution, if a company does not fulfill an agreement... go on strike. Stop going into work, and it will cost the company money. Convince people to not spend their money at that company until they do what they said they would do. Once again, that requires absolutely zero government involvement.

[Fugus]

If you want to focus on one thing, then you should focus on the causes as to why right-to-work laws are put into place. If you oppose the government getting involved, then you should be consistent. The Wagner Act went very far to interfering in the daily running of companies. It helped create the standard of "union shops." If the Wagner Act goes away, many union shops disappear. I'm fine with that, because that's less government meddling where it simply does not belong.

The government is force, that's its entire point. By asking government to be involved, you are asking for force. I see no reason for right-to-work laws, because I find them to be inherently unnecessary. The same goes for things like the Wagner Act. I do not support them, either. I want the government out of business, and I'm damn consistent about it.

If both sides voluntarily want a government entity to oversee and enforce an agreement they make, fine. The Wagner Act does not fit that bill. Neither does a right-to-work law that bans union shops. They are both cut from the same cloth, just by different people, for different reasons. Of course, there's also another solution, if a company does not fulfill an agreement... go on strike. Stop going into work, and it will cost the company money. Convince people to not spend their money at that company until they do what they said they would do. Once again, that requires absolutely zero government involvement.

I was focusing on the right to work laws and why they were put into place, they were put into place to try and take the unions out at the knees as stated multiple times by the same politicians who have passed them.

I am as consistent as one could hope for. I am consistently against the government taking peoples rights away but I know also my my rights end where anothers rights begin and there must be a balance and I also know that there is a huge difference between the government intervening to protect a group versus intervening to take a group out.

And having to choose between those you, you are basically saying you will only get rid of the law that attempts to take Unions out and financially starve them if you can also remove the law that gives them any power at all and renders them powerless with no legal standing.

If the Wagner Act goes away, Unions go with it which is why it was passed in the first place, correct me if I am wrong.

And I know the government is force, it is meant to be the based on the collective will and well being of the people of the nation and part of that is making sure that the people are protected.

So, I ask you again, if you were to repeal the Wagner Act, what would you do to ensure that the unions had any real power of negotiation with the employers? Just because you don't see the reason for the Wagner Act, it has one and an important one.

Without the Wagner Act, why would the company voluntarily want anyone to oversee an agreement as they could just ignore them anyways.

And again, telling people "Just stop going to work" and "Just stop shopping there" doesn't work in the current economy for many and sometimes most thing depending on where you are and the "Just go on strike" doesn't work without the Wagner Act far as I know as it is what gives the strikers protections not to be screwed over for striking.

Sorry, but you are basically giving the choice of losing funding or losing all legal authority to do anything.

[Mehrunes]

Also a trend starts to roll down a hill......try to stop it.

To be fair, US worker rights are shit even without including this change compared to the rest of the western world (pretty much the entirety of it). Not a new development overall either. And yet there is no trend rolling down any hills and US remains the odd one out.

[Machismo]

I was focusing on the right to work laws and why they were put into place, they were put into place to try and take the unions out at the knees as stated multiple times by the same politicians who have passed them.

I am as consistent as one could hope for. I am consistently against the government taking peoples rights away but I know also my my rights end where anothers rights begin and there must be a balance and I also know that there is a huge difference between the government intervening to protect a group versus intervening to take a group out.

And having to choose between those you, you are basically saying you will only get rid of the law that attempts to take Unions out and financially starve them if you can also remove the law that gives them any power at all and renders them powerless with no legal standing.

If the Wagner Act goes away, Unions go with it which is why it was passed in the first place, correct me if I am wrong.

And I know the government is force, it is meant to be the based on the collective will and well being of the people of the nation and part of that is making sure that the people are protected.

So, I ask you again, if you were to repeal the Wagner Act, what would you do to ensure that the unions had any real power of negotiation with the employers? Just because you don't see the reason for the Wagner Act, it has one and an important one.

Without the Wagner Act, why would the company voluntarily want anyone to oversee an agreement as they could just ignore them anyways.

And again, telling people "Just stop going to work" and "Just stop shopping there" doesn't work in the current economy for many and sometimes most thing depending on where you are and the "Just go on strike" doesn't work without the Wagner Act far as I know as it is what gives the strikers protections not to be screwed over for striking.

Sorry, but you are basically giving the choice of losing funding or losing all legal authority to do anything.

And the Wagner Act was meant to take out companies and employers at the knees. If you don't like it when the government is force for the companies (right-to-work laws), then why should you support it when it is force for the unions? If you are going to argue that a company is not a person, and does not deserve rights, then the exact same can be said for a union. They are fundamentally the exact same thing. Both are trying to sell a product, and both want to get as much as possible for that product.

If I were to repeal the Wagner Act, I wouldn't do anything to ensure that unions had the upper hand. If I'm not going to help a company, I shouldn't help a union. If a company can arbitrarily ignore an agreement, then so can a union, correct? They can both willfully submit to an authority they both agree on, or they can both risk it. And yes, there is always another path, the employees and consumers. If a company doesn't do what they promised, stop working, and push a boycott. On top of that, I would not force any occupation in this country to require union membership, it should be 100% voluntary. Otherwise, you are taking away from worker rights. Now, if a company wants to only hire union workers, that should be their choice. If they don't, that should also be their choice.

There should be no protection for strikers. They should not be attacked, but then again, neither should anyone else. That doesn't require a special law, since there has long been laws banning assault in this country, long before 1935. Boycotts and strikes require work, perseverance, and determination. They require people to plan ahead. If a company decides to fire all their striking employees, good for them. If millions of people boycott a company, good for them. That's what freedom is all about, taking risks for the hopes of larger gains.

[Fugus]

snip

The Wagner Act wasn't meant to take companies and employers out at the knees, that is being disingenuous on your part to even claim that. It was to give the Unions and the Employers at least a somewhat more level playing ground. If it was to take out the companies and employers, their would be no jobs to have anywhere and would work against the Unions best interests as well.

Companies aren't people and they don't have the rights of PEOPLE but they do have legally binding obligations and contracts to follow.

And the Wagner Act didn't give the Unions the upper hand, it gave them a more level playing field. The best thing for the Unions is still in the interest in the company otherwise you would strangle them as well. Getting rid of the agreement would effectively remove the unions entirely and you refuse to accept that. No protections for the workers and the unions == no power or legal authority of the unions. Can you not see that?

And you keep trying to go back to that same "Don't shop there, Don't work there" rhetoric, just stop because you repeating it doesn't change the fact that it isn't possible for a lot of things and a lot of places for various reasons nowadays.

And again no one is requiring 100% union membership for all jobs, no one asked for that. You don't want to join a union, don't go to a union job. You want to join a union, don't go to the non-union job. It isn't forcing you to join a union, it isn't forcing you to avoid a union and it isn't forcing unions to deal with scabs mooching off them.

Sorry man, but you are putting your ideology before your ability to think rationally about this unless your intention is to purposefully gut unions by removing any influence they could possibly have and I would rather have unions fighting for workers than riots fighting for workers because they had no other option.

You are not providing anything that is actually viable that would allow workers any power in collective bargaining for their wages in an environment where they have no power without it.

[Machismo]

Then it's disingenuous to say that right-to-work laws are meant to take out unions at the knees.

Unions are not people, and they don't have the rights of people. They should also obey the laws and contracts. If you support restricting companies, then you should also restrict unions. The Wagner Act (that small part of it, it is much more encompassing) is no different than the right-to-work laws.

Are you saying boycotts and strikes cannot be successful? That is how people voice their displeasure. It has crippled and destroyed many businesses. Threats of boycotts and strikes cause companies to adjust their actions all the time. How often is there no viable alternative for a product or service? is the problem that people cannot do it, or is it that they are too lazy, and not willing to actually put their money where their mouths are?

I have stated, I have no problem with union jobs. I simply have a problem forcing companies to hire union workers. I have a problem when people try to use a government to say what jobs need to be union jobs. The entire idea of a "union shop" was an attempt to force government into the equation. Get government out of it, entirely. Let a business decide on its own if it wants to be a union shop. Do you think a business should be able to choose if any of its employees are union, or not? I would hope so.

You are not being consistent. You claim you aren't trying to force anything, but your support of the Wagner Act, and your opposition to free markets proves otherwise. You are trying to force your beliefs onto others, and don't want others to force their beliefs upon you. How are you any different than those who pushed right-to work laws?

Boycotts are viable. Strikes are viable. They work all the time. You just don't like it, because the employees often lose out. That's the risks we take. I assume you also support the idea that a company should be able to fire any employee who goes on strike?

[Orlong]

Right to work laws are a law, so you can't so there isn't a law. The law prohibits AKA limits the freedom of the unions of the ability to negotiate.

It doesnt prohibit the unions from negotiating. Its just giving the worker the freedom to decide whether they find union membership worth the dues. Freedom of the individuals is always more important than the freedoms of a business or organization The union can still negotiate for their members even if some people leave. They just wont have the same amount of dues money to stuff the pockets of people like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Conyers (Who has been taking the money for 52 years) and Nancy Pelosi every election

- - - Updated - - -

There is a requirement to be in the union for some jobs to prevent freeloading which the Right to Freeload laws express purpose was to subvert that requirement to defund the unions with moochers.

Freeloading only happens because the business is too lazy to negotiate wages and benefits separately with those who choose not to be in a union so they pay them the same. The solution isnt to make laws requiring people to join the union, the solution is for the unions to negotiate a clause in their contracts that requires the company to negotiate separately with the non union workers