I’m in 100% agreement with you on all points. I think the main point of my article was to show that the courts have taken notice of the law. The laws say that dues may be required if the union does not enjoy the right of exclusive representation.
But something else came up while I was reading your prose. Unions are a natural free market response to the threat of monopsony. Monopsony is similar to monopoly. The difference here, is that without competition, the employer gets to set the price of labor. Unions arose to create a complementary force to negotiate with monopsony.
I have to wonder, has there ever been a union that was not created in response to monopsony. Large multinational corporations with enormous power beg for a union response, with exclusive representation. Here is where law could use at least some adjustment.
Alternatively, where union power is low or nearly absent, we find labor monopsony. We’ve seen this dynamic here, in America. Most major sectors are run by monopoly or duopoly businesses. And as we’ve seen in the high technology sectors, think Google, Apple and Adobe, many companies collude with unwritten non-poaching agreements.
BTW, my favorite example of a union country is far and away, Germany. There, workers have representation on the board of directors. There, unions enjoy strong patronage. And in Germany, they don’t race to the bottom, they focus on making high quality products at the top.
Thank you for taking the time to read an older article of mine and for sharing your views. You have given me food for thought…