I have the same opinion about unions that Hank Rearden did.

Gwen Ives: United Metal Workers Guild?
Rearden: (Chuckles) File it.

Too many today mis-define unions. They've been with us since pre-history, even in tribal conditions as clans, beginning with any specialization in crafts, primarily as value protection of the individual craftsman and control, and secondarily to ensure the training of future craftsmen. As trade between tribes grew and concentration of populations grew, guilds which spanned beyond the tribe came into being. Weavers, Smiths, Masons, Woodworkers, Farmers, etc., etc.

It's only with the advent of the machine age and the production line of the latter 19th century, combined with the 'commons' concepts of Marx that guilds became less relevant and today's destructive 'unionism' took over and began it's takeover of labor. Now, not only the trained craftsman could exercise more control over his worth and value, but the common laborer and machine operator and bolt tightener with little if any skill or training could join in and obtain his piece of the 'commons pie'. Today's Unionism is in fact nothing more than Marxism, and by permitting unions, first to nationalize beyond their local association by partnering with those in government, and then into government employment, the technocrats of socialism in bureaucracy gained control of the government and much of the economy.

You ask to 'highlight how unions can be fully deserving of the term monopoly', but in doing so, you drastically minimize the truth and the true danger of today's unions. Today's major unions are not for the most part composed of men who've spent years of study, training, and practice to become proficient in their craft or trade - but instead are primarily composed of those with at most a high-school education and have learned the necessities of their job with a week or a month's training, mostly called familiarization and have gained promotions through seniority.

As to those that proclaim that unions have managed to improve the safety and conditions of the 'working class', that's nonsense and ignores the actual history and factual requirements of industry, obviously quoted and propagandized by those that have little real experience of working in such supposedly dangerous and humanity draining conditions. Pure economies of obtaining and keeping workers and maintaining productivity have done as much or more than any supposed activities by unions or regulations by technocrats of bureaucracy. Those supposed activities and regulations for the working conditions of the working class have only served to gain control of industry, impose massive burdens on productivity, and drained trillions of dollars from society.

That's enough for now.

Ayn Rand once called unions the best hope for a new capitalist economy. I am pretty much pro-union, in the same sense that I am pro-business: no one has the right to use force. Businesses have the chambers of commerce and many various association groups. In terms of computering, given the broad and deep culture of self-employment and entrepreneurship, it would be hard to say where a computer user group is a trade association, a business meeting, or a labor union hiring hall. I think that is a good model. Rand said in particular that informing members of wage rates would be a primary service of unions in a (laissez faire) capitalist economy. She also said that any employer who had an unsafe workplace could be sanctioned legally and financially (fined by law) whether or not anyone actually was injured.

Please please please use the NJEA as an example. They are likely the single most union ,in The Union, that drove up taxes so high they've actually made an entire state virtually unaffordable to live in and absolutely impossible to retire in.

It is a mistake to separate people in labor, capital, households, and government. It can be convenient for some analysis, but it is not a truth. Households are businesses. Laborers are capitalists.

We all agree that unions went astray in gaining government-sanctioned powers of coercion. However, as all laborers are capitalists, that error applies to all such unions: the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Automobile Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the American Medical Association... They all get special laws passed to serve what the organization claims to be the "interests" of its members.

The issue of PAC (political action committee) money also applies. These organizations all take money from members, pool it, and spend it on political campaigns for specific issues. Members seldom get to pick those issues in preference to others or none or none-of-the-above.

Some here - jbrenner, for instance - complain about union retirement funds. However, the AOPA has arranged for special life insurance for pilots. Usually, you say that you are a pilot and you cannot get life insurance. So the AOPA created this program with an insurer. You pay for that whether you actually fly or not because if you are a passenger, part of your ticket fare goes for that. The AMA has perks for doctors, the ADA for dentists.

I see no way to get around it, except by a broad - seemingly alien - culture of such strong individualism that groups in general were rare.

If there were no government intervention in the employee-employer relationship, unions would exist or not exist based on their merit. Because of the intrusion of coercive force the relationship becomes polluted. The voting block represented by the union and their campaign contributions corrupt the process and makes it into a detriment to the enterprise. This is true for both public and private situations and in the case of public service unions it is a conflict of interest.

Just to interject here...while unions have rolls, they should fulfill certain roles.

I was just reading up about hiring halls on Wikipedia and found this:
"In organized labor, a hiring hall is an organization, usually under the [control] of a labor union, which has the responsibility of furnishing new recruits for employers who have a collective bargaining agreement with the union. The employer's use of the hiring hall may be voluntary, or it may be compulsory by the terms of the employer's contract with the union (or, in a few cases, the labor laws of the [government]). Compulsory use of a hiring hall effectively turns employers into a closed shop because employees must join the union before they can be hired. Since closed shops are illegal in the United States, all hiring halls presumably operate on a voluntary basis."

Is that really true. I thought the "closed shop" issue was one of the greatest threats of unions. I thought that was how they became lobbying monopolies. If closed shops are illegal in the United States, then how do unions make them anyway? Am I mistaken in thinking this is a problem?

Wait further reading on wikipedia leads me to believe that, though closed shops are illegal, union shops are legal except in right-to-work states.
"A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs."
It sounds just as bad to me. The result is the same. If someone wants a job they have to join a union. I'm sure there's more nuance to it though.

For example: if you are hired by an employer but aren't a member of the union aren't you going to benefited from the union anyway? Thoughts anyone?