4 ms·

> The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. Did you mean people in the union? AKA workers? Sure they want a strong position when bargaining

> The union is out to strengthen the position of their members. Did you mean people in the union? AKA workers? Sure they want a strong position when bargaining for worker rights. This seems like it's good for workers still. Going another step further one could, more truly, state CEO's and the board are just out for their own interest. They could (and do) attempt to skate by caring as little for their own workers as possible. In which case, it'd be nice if someone had enough power to stand up and get better working conditions through some sort of organized union perhaps?

chrisseaton 10y ago
Say a union is mostly run by older workers. They may be interested in getting the company to make pay by seniority only. You're a young worker. They want you to join, because it gives them more bargaining power to get their seniority pay implemented. It doesn't help you at all. They only want you to join to help them. I don't know if that kind of thing happens a lot in practice, but can you see how their interests aren't always going to be yours?
- chii 10y ago
  so you don't join, or negotiate it such that the condition on joining is that the union also argues for rights for younger workers.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point and the union is free to diverge from your interests.
    - LesZedCB 10y ago
      well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....
      - neuland 10y ago
        IMO this is the crux of the argument between anti-union workers and pro-union workers. To benefit all parties, the most obvious solution is to get rid of the rule that requires unions to cover non-union workers. Then everyone can associate the way they and if anti-union workers are worse off for it, they can either stand on their principles and make less or join the union and make more. But, unions don't seem to want that, because they benefit greatly both from the power dynamic in closed shops and from this very argument (that anti-union workers are free-riders at best or scabs out for themselves at worst).
        pseudalopex 10y ago
        Business interests don't seem to want that either. Members of a certain party keep introducing legislation to take the free-rider problem nationwide instead of adopting your principled suggestion.
        neuland 10y ago
        Do you know what the reasoning would be for business interests to oppose allowing mixed (union/non-union) workplaces? Off the top of my head, I could see entrenched businesses that already have union workers (ie. big auto manufacturers, ISP's, etc) want to make sure their competitors have to work with the union, too.
        pseudalopex 10y ago
        If I run a non-unionized workplace, I want workers to be afraid of being stuck with a union that doesn't represent their interests. Letting workers opt out of union representation limits that risk. If I run a workplace where the union has marginal support, I might see an underfunded, unpopular union as more vulnerable than a smaller union with stronger support. If the union has strong support, I'm probably better off with it representing everyone. A union that represents 80% of my workers would have almost as much leverage but less flexibility to make concessions.
      - 10y ago
    - Frondo 10y ago
      In the U.S., you never need to join a union, even at a union shop, anywhere. The issue is that, in a union shop--and this varies state by state--you might have to pay union dues whether or not you're a member. That issue of being compelled to pay union dues whether or not you're a member is the crux of the "right to work" debate (a bullshit term, because everyone always has the right to work, these laws are just about weakening unions and setting laws in favor of the owners). But being compelled to join a union? In the U.S.? Nope, never.
      - pseudalopex 10y ago
        To expand on that, federal law requires a union to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. In exchange, they're allowed to collect partial dues from non-members. In "right to work" states, the union still has to represent non-members, but they don't have to pay.
  - itake 10y ago
    but that is the crux of their argument. both employers and union members can spread bad information to influence your decision on whether or not they should join.

chrisseaton 10y ago

Say a union is mostly run by older workers. They may be interested in getting the company to make pay by seniority only. You're a young worker. They want you to join, because it gives them more bargaining power to get their seniority pay implemented. It doesn't help you at all. They only want you to join to help them. I don't know if that kind of thing happens a lot in practice, but can you see how their interests aren't always going to be yours?

chii 10y ago
so you don't join, or negotiate it such that the condition on joining is that the union also argues for rights for younger workers.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I think the most unions attempt to make union membership a requirement for working at unionized employers, so you don't really have much choice at that point and the union is free to diverge from your interests.
  - LesZedCB 10y ago
    well, if you work at the company that does have a unionized workforce, then you do receive the benefits that a union negotiated. So, sure, you don't have to join the union, but it wouldn't be fair to receive the benefits of the other union members collective bargaining, while not paying into it yourself. On the other hand, if you _still_ think that's somehow unfair, you can go to one of those "right to work" states....
    - neuland 10y ago
      IMO this is the crux of the argument between anti-union workers and pro-union workers. To benefit all parties, the most obvious solution is to get rid of the rule that requires unions to cover non-union workers. Then everyone can associate the way they and if anti-union workers are worse off for it, they can either stand on their principles and make less or join the union and make more. But, unions don't seem to want that, because they benefit greatly both from the power dynamic in closed shops and from this very argument (that anti-union workers are free-riders at best or scabs out for themselves at worst).
      - pseudalopex 10y ago
        Business interests don't seem to want that either. Members of a certain party keep introducing legislation to take the free-rider problem nationwide instead of adopting your principled suggestion.
        neuland 10y ago
        Do you know what the reasoning would be for business interests to oppose allowing mixed (union/non-union) workplaces? Off the top of my head, I could see entrenched businesses that already have union workers (ie. big auto manufacturers, ISP's, etc) want to make sure their competitors have to work with the union, too.
        pseudalopex 10y ago
        If I run a non-unionized workplace, I want workers to be afraid of being stuck with a union that doesn't represent their interests. Letting workers opt out of union representation limits that risk. If I run a workplace where the union has marginal support, I might see an underfunded, unpopular union as more vulnerable than a smaller union with stronger support. If the union has strong support, I'm probably better off with it representing everyone. A union that represents 80% of my workers would have almost as much leverage but less flexibility to make concessions.
    - 10y ago
  - Frondo 10y ago
    In the U.S., you never need to join a union, even at a union shop, anywhere. The issue is that, in a union shop--and this varies state by state--you might have to pay union dues whether or not you're a member. That issue of being compelled to pay union dues whether or not you're a member is the crux of the "right to work" debate (a bullshit term, because everyone always has the right to work, these laws are just about weakening unions and setting laws in favor of the owners). But being compelled to join a union? In the U.S.? Nope, never.
    - pseudalopex 10y ago
      To expand on that, federal law requires a union to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. In exchange, they're allowed to collect partial dues from non-members. In "right to work" states, the union still has to represent non-members, but they don't have to pay.
- itake 10y ago
  but that is the crux of their argument. both employers and union members can spread bad information to influence your decision on whether or not they should join.