What he describes there is 'right to work'. In non right to work States, you must belong to the trade union to work in the specific field, you have no choice about it. A right to work state means you have a choice to join or not join a union. You are free to choose the path that is best for you. His description is not accurate for non-right to work states. In those states, licensing for a trade is dependent and through the union. You can't legally be an electrician, for example.
That is in essence, a corporate monopoly on employment- with the union playing the role of the evil 'corporation', pushing small, independent workers out of business.
Ask him what would happen if he was in a non-right to work state and the union took a turn he didn't like. He would have no choice to work independently outside of union membership.
Right to work means freedom for the employee. They can freely choose to join or not join a union.
If his paycheck is hindered by the freedom of others, that says a lot about the monopoly of the union. How different is that than Wal Mart pushing-out(sic) small, independent businesses?
There were 2 of us in the discussion criticizing unions. I was taking the tact that they were immoral. The other guy was actually a non-union electrician who was saying that union workers don't do a good job.
They both work in Ohio which is not a right to work state.