> Barring any actual proof of this “forcing” happening
They force non-union members to get the same benefits and pay the same union dues. What is hard to understand here? This is what unions in USA fight so hard to keep, they wouldn't fight for it if they didn't use it to force people.
For example, if you want to be an actor in California, you need to join SAG if you want to be in a union production. But if you join SAG you are no longer allowed to work in non-union productions, essentially creating two separate markets. Do you think this isn't happening? Many big actors hate this, but they are forced to join SAG anyway.
Here is how it works if you don't want to look it up yourself:
> Once this grace period expires, however, you become classified as a “must-join”. As the label implies, you now must join the union and pay the initiation fee if you wish to continue to work any SAG-AFTRA jobs going forward.
Edit: And here is how right to work gives you a choice instead of the union being able to force you:
> There is usually more flexibility for must-join actors who reside in right-to-work states, since right-to-work states have laws that prohibit unions from requiring workers to join a union as a condition for employment. However, the largest acting markets in the United States, like Los Angeles and New York, are union states.
Conceded that sag has a pretty special case here in the “must join” of course, speaking from the free market view, you are more than welcome to work on non-union gigs of which there are plenty. No one is making you join a union just because you are in a profession + a place. There’s plenty of non-union gigs in Hollywood. I don’t see the harm in making people pay dues if they are getting the benefits of a union gig and this is not the same as “being forced” to join a union — you can go work in another state with right to work laws.
This also seems like a pretty special case to SAG since we can see union and non union workers in auto plants: evidenced by the tier system that many auto manufacturers put in place. So not all unions have this same bargaining power.
They force non-union members to get the same benefits and pay the same union dues. What is hard to understand here? This is what unions in USA fight so hard to keep, they wouldn't fight for it if they didn't use it to force people.
For example, if you want to be an actor in California, you need to join SAG if you want to be in a union production. But if you join SAG you are no longer allowed to work in non-union productions, essentially creating two separate markets. Do you think this isn't happening? Many big actors hate this, but they are forced to join SAG anyway.
Here is how it works if you don't want to look it up yourself:
> Once this grace period expires, however, you become classified as a “must-join”. As the label implies, you now must join the union and pay the initiation fee if you wish to continue to work any SAG-AFTRA jobs going forward.
https://actingmagazine.com/2021/01/what-is-a-must-join/
Edit: And here is how right to work gives you a choice instead of the union being able to force you:
> There is usually more flexibility for must-join actors who reside in right-to-work states, since right-to-work states have laws that prohibit unions from requiring workers to join a union as a condition for employment. However, the largest acting markets in the United States, like Los Angeles and New York, are union states.