It depends heavily on the country but a worker at a company can pick a union to represent them. You might see a billboards saying join Union a or Union B. If you Union a is corrupt or screwing over one group of workers in favor of another group of worker, the laborers will just leave it and go to a different one.

This solves a lot of problems with us unions, where they have a state sanctioned Monopoly on the workers.

The classic example is unions are going for terms that screw over junior members but there are other perverse examples. At my friend's company the Union demanded that it be forced to return to office because the larger number of field technicians we're a voting majority of the union and angry they couldn't work from home.

▲

legitster a day ago | parent | next [-]

> The classic example is unions are going for terms that screw over junior members but there are other perverse examples.'

The story I always think of is the Port of Portland shutting down was because the ILWU organized a $20 million dollar slowdown to punish the operator. The operator ended up pulling out of the city never to return, costing all the ILWU workers their jobs, as well as the city of Portland a few million a year in taxes.

The reason for the $20 million dollar slow down? The ILWU wanted to take two jobs away on the site from the IBEW!

▲

OkayPhysicist a day ago | parent | prev [-]

On the otherhand, having a plethora of unions at a workplace weakens labor's bargaining power: A US union, by the nature of having a closed shop, has the power to destroy the business with a prolonged strike. Nobody wants that (capital's out their investment, labor's out their jobs), but it serves as the nuclear option from which the union's bargaining power is derived.

▲

annzabelle a day ago | parent | next [-]

This makes US unions very all or nothing, and excessive demands from unions (particularly RE: pensions) have driven many businesses out of business and bankrupted many municipalities.

My understanding is German and Scandinavian unions are much more collaborative and are unlikely to force demands that bankrupt companies.

This is why unions have such a negative connotation in the US. A lot of people see municipal governments being held hostage by unions over pensions and early retirement, and union employees being so hard to fire that you end up with "rubber rooms" and end up associating unions with expensive enshittification of services.

	▲	OkayPhysicist 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Unions have a negative connotation in the US because the there is a lot of money in giving them one. The US union structure arose because they predate any legal protections. You don't need the law to protect you for a strike to kill a company, it just (mostly) prevents the spiraling violence that often would ensue.

▲

s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you are confusing terms. Closed (only members can even apply to work) shops were outlawed in the us in 1947.

24 states allow Union shops (workers must join the union after hire).

In theory multiple unions could strike together. Alternatively, dissenting members of a single union can keep working.

In both systems striking is the union leverage.

	▲	OkayPhysicist 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ah, I missed the difference between union shops and closed shops. But that alternative of dissenting unions not striking is exactly the loss of leverage that I was talking about.
	▲	malmz 18 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Multiple unions striking is not just theoretical but the norm i Europe. There was a large strike against Tesla in Sweden. Many unions across the supply chain joined the strike in solidarity.