Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, what they oppose isn't unions as such, but compulsory union membership. They consider that a union should arise from the expression of worker needs, and a union that they are forced to join and that exists whether they want it or not might lack incentives to represent their needs instead of the needs of the union. It's kind of like the saying about organizations in general: eventually they come to s…
> compulsory union membership Yea, it can be frustrating be barred from jobs, like construction, being a non-member, or being forced to pay union dues to a union you feel is doing nothing for you. Small, company-sized unions have always been a lot more appealing to me than the huge behemoths the US currently has.
1.) A grueling apprenticeship period in which you would work very long hours for very little pay. I could be wrong but I think this was a several year long process.
2.) You could skip that process if you were vouched for by an existing union member. In practice, this often meant that membership was passed down through families.
I understand that it’s similar for firefighters.