What if a worker has a job and a union takes over and then demands money from them?
Beyond that almost never happening, you may then be in a prickly situation. In real life, it depends on state laws and your employee contract.
I would defer to your employee contract. Those electing to start the union should not have power to overcome your employee contract. However, if the union determines that there are troublesome workers that detract from the work environment, then you may have problems regardless of what your employment contract says. This is because if you are violating your employee contract then your job can legally fire you.
If the vast majority of your workplace votes to unionize despite your protests, you may be out of sync with them. However, unless your employee contract specifies that you can be fired for not joining the union, or that you must join the union, you probably don't have to join the union in my case. If you are working in a place which just barely was able to pass a union, you probably could be okay, just have everyone stick to their employee contract.
However, you should also be aware that if conditions were popular enough for your fellow workers to unionize, and it was composed of most of the workplace, your fellow workers may hold a grudge and may be upset at you which could create a very hostile workplace for you. Someone who is out of sync with the rest of the workers sometimes, even in non-unionized jobs, is seen as more a liability than beneficial.
That said, check your employee contract. You don't have one? Well...you might want to start worrying about where you are working. At least you know that the state or national laws are by default, part of the contract at that point. That's better than nothing in some places, scarily deficient in others, and downright non-existent in some really bad places to work. If they don't have an employee contract, they may also neglect other areas of concern (such as safety measures, etc).
Some other organization like AAA should not be allowed to prevent you from buying the car just because you are not paying them a monthly fee. After all AAA protects all motorists, shouldn't everyone with a car have to pay them for that?
You are trying to change what we are talking about. we are not talking about preventing you from buying the car, we are simply saying if you don't want a car, you don't buy a car.
No one is preventing you from buying the car. No one is preventing you from getting a Union Job.
However, if you buy a car, you are either going to have to pay the funds to take care of it (the oil changes, transmission changes, fluid checks, tires ever so many thousand miles, etc) or your car is going to break down.
If you buy a car, you will have to pay the money to keep up the car or lose it. It's a natural order of things.
The same with a Union, if you want a Union job, you need to pay the Union dues. Part and parcel of the picture.
If you don't want a Union Job, get a non-union job. You don't have to pay the Union dues then. You may have lower benefits or other expenses that need to be paid (for example, maybe they offer health insurance which if you want it, they will have you pay your part our of the paycheck...that's a US thing).
Which is, if you don't want to buy a car and pay for it's upkeep, maybe you want to buy a motorbike instead. It only has two tires you need to pay for, is normally cheaper, may take less oil and fuel, and is considered less safe by some but could get great mileage.
This is an easy analogy to understand. No one is preventing you from buying either one, but with any vehicle you get you either pay for it's upkeep or it will soon breakdown on you and you won't have a functioning vehicle.
You get a job and pay the dues (whatever they are, for example, many mechanic shops in the US require non-union members to buy their own tools for several thousand dollars, buy their uniforms for a few hundred, etc) regardless of whether it is union or non-union.
Hence, if you want a Union job, pay the Union Due.
If you don't want to pay the Union Dues, get a non-union job.
I am not working for the union. I should be allowed to try for any job I want. If the union wants my money let them offer the value proposition such that I want to pay for it.
I don't think anyone will prevent you from applying for a Union job. I think they should make it clear that it is a Union job though, and if you refuse to be part of the Union, you won't be there very long. You are allowed to try for any job you want.
However, you are trying to sell yourself as a valuable commodity to the company and the other workers who will be part of the team.
Why should they want you to be part of their team. They and the company should be allowed to determine who will be part of the union and the job.
It's a two way street in this case. It's not just up to you.
I am fine with this. I am fine with excluding non-union workers from a CBA. I am fine with not giving them protections or legal benefits or anything else that is part of the deal the union strikes with the employer. I am not fine with them saying they need to be fired or can't work.
No one said you can't work. If you don't want to work a Union Job and pay Union dues, go get a job that isn't a Union job.
The reason many people choose to be part of a Union and strive for Union jobs is because the Unions have normally, in the past, given higher benefits and salaries to those who are a part of those companies than those who are not.
That's the magic of collective bargaining and joining together to be more powerful than an individual trying to go it alone. It's why we say teams are better than a solo person, and a pack is better and more effective than the Lone Wolf.
