[pingpongchef]

I can think of a few reasons competition can be beneficial.

1. Exert downward pressure on union fees

2. Offer alternatives in the case of union corruption

3. Offer alternatives in union priorities/mission

Also, I don't follow how competition in the two spaces, firms and unions, is necessarily different in kind. To the degree that competition "weakens" unions, the same should apply to firms.

[kieselguhr_kid]

The difference from a worker's perspective is that increased competition for their work should drive wages up, while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power.

But to address your points: 1. Union dues are low. Given what organizing actually looks like, multiple unions are more likely to undermine the existence of a unionized workforce at all than to drive dues down. 2. Ideally, union corruption would be dealt with the entire shop moving to a different local, not the shop splitting into sectors. 3. Workers elect their stewards and negotiators, who set the negotiating agenda. It's not perfect, but this would be better dealt with by new representation than by adding another union with a competing agenda.

Like I said, I believe this reflects a misunderstanding about the function of unions and what workers are trying to get out of them.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

> while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power.

It couldn't undermine it compared to no union at all, could it? It seems like still a net improvement.