4 ms·
>When I was in a unionized position, it was frustrating because I couldn't choose to not join (technically I guess I could, but the union and the employer had a
by omouse 11y ago
>When I was in a unionized position, it was frustrating because I couldn't choose to not join (technically I guess I could, but the union and the employer had already agreed that non-union employees still paid 90+% of union dues to the union. why this is legal I have no idea).
Then that's not a real union. A real union also has competition; if the conditions are great at an employer the union will slowly lose members. If the union acts badly, the employees will just create a new union. But if there's only one union and it's cozy with the employer then you have a "company union" which will not always work on the benefits for the employees. You see this with teachers unions that hardly protect the teachers (salary/wage freezes and shrinking of benefits have been happening for years now).
>They were an entity with lots of institutional power, but they all had their own agenda. It's not like they really had my best interests at heart. It just became one more level of power to answer to. It was really frustrating, and I was happy when I was able to leave.
Yep and that's precisely the goal of a "company union". They want to make it so that the word "union" is a curse word. Even unions need competition.