5 ms·

Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? (I'm even willing to invest some time digging if anyone has some pointers to potential sourc

by gburt 11y ago

Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? (I'm even willing to invest some time digging if anyone has some pointers to potential sources of literature, I am genuinely interested.) My personal experience has been that when I've been the so-called "beneficiary" of one, it has not actually benefited me and has often made for awkward scenarios where there is me and the counterparty ("employer") and this weird semi-interested third-party regulating how we can interact, regardless of what is actually in my self-interest. Just to be clear, I am all for collective bargaining in the sense of a bunch of (small) actors choosing to work together against an adversary. I would do this myself if I deemed it beneficial. I don't understand why we would mandate that individuals had to be bound by the agreement whether they want to participate or not. I recognize that this is a common structure though.

MCRed 11y ago
In fact, in the two instances where I've worked at "closed shop" places early in my career, the combination of HAVING to join the union to keep my job, and Union dues, meant that I would have been making LESS than minimum wage as a result! (Worse in one case the dues were annual but I had to pay half up front-- which I wouldn't get back if I lost the job.)
nerfhammer 11y ago
I think the argument is that if people aren't required to be in the union then people can free ride on the union's efforts without paying dues.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  they should still have that choice as they cannot choose what happens with their union dues. far too many unions spend inordinate amounts of money on political activities instead of their own membership. then top it off with all the bureaucratic bloat and high paid leadership I think people must be given the right to abstain. If you want to dodge the free ride then have the dues go to a non political spending charity of your choice provided it is local, may I suggest children's healthcare hospitals
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "they should still have that choice as they cannot choose what happens with their union dues" This isn't true. "far too many unions spend inordinate amounts of money on political activities instead of their own membership" If you believe that, then start getting involved in your union's leadership and change it. " then top it off with all the bureaucratic bloat and high paid leadership" As opposed to the leanness and crappily paid leadership of the company?
  - santaclaus 11y ago
    Technically one is allowed to exercise the so-called 'Beck' decision [1] and only pay the union what is required for contact negotiation and related fees. In practice I wonder how difficult it is to actually leverage Beck. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_Amer...
rverghes 11y ago
It's generally to prevent free-riding. Let's say the union negotiates benefit X, and the company then provides benefit X to all employees including non-union employees. An example could be safety features that the union is pushing for. The non-union employees have benefited from the actions of the union without having to pay the cost. To balance this, involuntary unionization usually requires a majority vote from the employees to unionize.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Is that true in right-to-work states as well? I thought right-to-work was specifically to prevent involuntary unionization.
  - rverghes 11y ago
    Yes, but right-to-work is generally a reaction to involuntary unionization, as in it came after the involuntary unionization phase.
gertef 11y ago
A union is essentially a local government, aligned along employment instead of geography. It is logically very similar to how your local municipality (or HOA) can levy taxes and enforce laws against you.
markdown 11y ago
If joining the union is a choice, employers will simply prevent employees from doing so, either with threats or disincentives. "Want to receive a bonus at the end of the year, don't join the union".
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  And if the union has enough power and its members care enough, they can say "stop doing that or we'll all quit, good luck replacing us". If the employer has the power to say "go ahead and quit then", then the union doesn't actually have the power to effect change, so why should anyone bother being a member?
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No. Just no. Any argument you make will always come back to, "The company will threaten and fire people who don't go along with what they want."
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      Are you attempting to make a counterargument, or are you hoping people will read your comment and go "yeah, corporations bad, down with corporations!"? Yes, voluntary unions have to fight against the ability of a company to simply fire people; they depend on the willingness of the entire group to stand together and take the risk together, win or lose. The whole point of a union is that employees have more power collectively than individually. A company can just tell an individual "no". If all or almost all employees get together and say "the situation is so bad that we're willing to quit (and make a lot of noise and bad PR for you) rather than let this go on", then that's harder to ignore. If the company is willing to fire everyone and deal with the bad PR, and that's cheaper than the union's demands, then the union doesn't actually have the power to effect change even as a collective. I don't see any reason that either the company or the union should be artificially given more power in that scenario.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
latj 11y ago
What you are describing is what existed before what we have now. A group of people working for an employer would try to negotiate for safer working conditions, better benefits, etc. The employer would take the list of demands, fire the person who handed him the list and say, "I'm not giving you any of this shit and anyone who talks about it again gets fired too." So people started organizing by trade. It made sense because workers of a common trade share experiences and grievances. If one particular employer treated its workers bad, that trade guild had more leverage by threatening work stoppage against other employers who could put pressure on the first employer. Over time employers started to converge and grow in power. Now you have a company who employs thousands of people in multiple locations. To keep the balance in power, the unions converged and grew in power. You cant threaten to replace a union worker if everyone who does that job is in the union(1). Now the unions are big enough to disrupt economies, sway elections, etc. They are large professional entities of lawyers, financial managers. They want everyone in the union for maximal leverage (ie fewer scabs, more dues) so they lobbied to affect the policies we have today. The small voluntary no-admin-overhead organization you are describing is ideal, but its really unlikely to work. It would depend on the employer allowing it to happen. I could say more here about the growing wealth gap, criminalization of poverty, and the quiet ongoing class war, and end with a Malcom X quote, "Anytime you depend on your enemy for a job you're in bad shape." But I dont feel like saying all that. ;) 1. robots
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > You cant threaten to replace a union worker if everyone who does that job is in the union If an employer did something like that, the FTC would go after them for abusing a monopoly to dictate pricing, for anti-competitive practices (e.g. contracts that prevent doing business with competitors), etc. But somehow it's OK for unions to do that?
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Not "somehow." It's written into federal law.
  - __jal 11y ago
LordHumungous 11y ago
>Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? They drastically increase employee leverage and lead to much higher wages and benefits for labor.

by gburt 11y ago

MCRed 11y ago

In fact, in the two instances where I've worked at "closed shop" places early in my career, the combination of HAVING to join the union to keep my job, and Union dues, meant that I would have been making LESS than minimum wage as a result! (Worse in one case the dues were annual but I had to pay half up front-- which I wouldn't get back if I lost the job.)

nerfhammer 11y ago

I think the argument is that if people aren't required to be in the union then people can free ride on the union's efforts without paying dues.

Shivetya 11y ago
they should still have that choice as they cannot choose what happens with their union dues. far too many unions spend inordinate amounts of money on political activities instead of their own membership. then top it off with all the bureaucratic bloat and high paid leadership I think people must be given the right to abstain. If you want to dodge the free ride then have the dues go to a non political spending charity of your choice provided it is local, may I suggest children's healthcare hospitals
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "they should still have that choice as they cannot choose what happens with their union dues" This isn't true. "far too many unions spend inordinate amounts of money on political activities instead of their own membership" If you believe that, then start getting involved in your union's leadership and change it. " then top it off with all the bureaucratic bloat and high paid leadership" As opposed to the leanness and crappily paid leadership of the company?
- santaclaus 11y ago
  Technically one is allowed to exercise the so-called 'Beck' decision [1] and only pay the union what is required for contact negotiation and related fees. In practice I wonder how difficult it is to actually leverage Beck. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_Amer...

rverghes 11y ago

It's generally to prevent free-riding. Let's say the union negotiates benefit X, and the company then provides benefit X to all employees including non-union employees. An example could be safety features that the union is pushing for. The non-union employees have benefited from the actions of the union without having to pay the cost. To balance this, involuntary unionization usually requires a majority vote from the employees to unionize.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Is that true in right-to-work states as well? I thought right-to-work was specifically to prevent involuntary unionization.
- rverghes 11y ago
  Yes, but right-to-work is generally a reaction to involuntary unionization, as in it came after the involuntary unionization phase.

gertef 11y ago

A union is essentially a local government, aligned along employment instead of geography. It is logically very similar to how your local municipality (or HOA) can levy taxes and enforce laws against you.

markdown 11y ago

If joining the union is a choice, employers will simply prevent employees from doing so, either with threats or disincentives. "Want to receive a bonus at the end of the year, don't join the union".

JoshTriplett 11y ago
And if the union has enough power and its members care enough, they can say "stop doing that or we'll all quit, good luck replacing us". If the employer has the power to say "go ahead and quit then", then the union doesn't actually have the power to effect change, so why should anyone bother being a member?
- s73v3r 11y ago
  No. Just no. Any argument you make will always come back to, "The company will threaten and fire people who don't go along with what they want."
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    Are you attempting to make a counterargument, or are you hoping people will read your comment and go "yeah, corporations bad, down with corporations!"? Yes, voluntary unions have to fight against the ability of a company to simply fire people; they depend on the willingness of the entire group to stand together and take the risk together, win or lose. The whole point of a union is that employees have more power collectively than individually. A company can just tell an individual "no". If all or almost all employees get together and say "the situation is so bad that we're willing to quit (and make a lot of noise and bad PR for you) rather than let this go on", then that's harder to ignore. If the company is willing to fire everyone and deal with the bad PR, and that's cheaper than the union's demands, then the union doesn't actually have the power to effect change even as a collective. I don't see any reason that either the company or the union should be artificially given more power in that scenario.
    - s73v3r 11y ago

latj 11y ago

What you are describing is what existed before what we have now. A group of people working for an employer would try to negotiate for safer working conditions, better benefits, etc. The employer would take the list of demands, fire the person who handed him the list and say, "I'm not giving you any of this shit and anyone who talks about it again gets fired too." So people started organizing by trade. It made sense because workers of a common trade share experiences and grievances. If one particular employer treated its workers bad, that trade guild had more leverage by threatening work stoppage against other employers who could put pressure on the first employer. Over time employers started to converge and grow in power. Now you have a company who employs thousands of people in multiple locations. To keep the balance in power, the unions converged and grew in power. You cant threaten to replace a union worker if everyone who does that job is in the union(1). Now the unions are big enough to disrupt economies, sway elections, etc. They are large professional entities of lawyers, financial managers. They want everyone in the union for maximal leverage (ie fewer scabs, more dues) so they lobbied to affect the policies we have today. The small voluntary no-admin-overhead organization you are describing is ideal, but its really unlikely to work. It would depend on the employer allowing it to happen. I could say more here about the growing wealth gap, criminalization of poverty, and the quiet ongoing class war, and end with a Malcom X quote, "Anytime you depend on your enemy for a job you're in bad shape." But I dont feel like saying all that. ;) 1. robots

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> You cant threaten to replace a union worker if everyone who does that job is in the union If an employer did something like that, the FTC would go after them for abusing a monopoly to dictate pricing, for anti-competitive practices (e.g. contracts that prevent doing business with competitors), etc. But somehow it's OK for unions to do that?
- drumdance 11y ago
  Not "somehow." It's written into federal law.
- __jal 11y ago

LordHumungous 11y ago

>Can you share some of the arguments in favor of involuntary unions? They drastically increase employee leverage and lead to much higher wages and benefits for labor.