3 ms·

> The equilibrium that I would like to see is the opposite: no forced membership and no requirement to represent non-members. There is no requirement to repres

> The equilibrium that I would like to see is the opposite: no forced membership and no requirement to represent non-members. There is no requirement to represent non-members. There is a requirement to represent all members of the bargaining unit. The union is free to define a narrower bargaining unit that only includes non-members. In the US, unions choose not to do this because they can always define a larger bargaining unit and collect fees from non-members, and there's almost no downside for them to do so. In other countries, unions aren't allowed to redefine bargaining units unilaterally, or aren't allowed to collect fees from non-members, or aren't allowed exclusive representation over non-members.

neuland 8y ago
I thought that a bargaining unit always had to be all workers in a particular job class, such as all software developers in a company (but not designers or hardware devs). But this wasn't based on anything other than observation of US unions. So I guess that's not true! Do you know of any unions that have atypical bargaining units, like covering everyone in a particular line of business or people in 2 very different jobs?
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > I thought that a bargaining unit always had to be all workers in a particular job class, such as all software developers in a company (but not designers or hardware devs). But this wasn't based on anything other than observation of US unions. So I guess that's not true! Nope, they definitely can do members-only bargaining. It just doesn't happen often, because the large union syndicates dislike or prohibit it. > Do you know of any unions that have atypical bargaining units, like covering everyone in a particular line of business or people in 2 very different jobs? Offhand, no, but I'm sure I could think of some. Again, in the US, the strategy taken by the major syndicates is to go for an all-or-nothing approach, in which it's preferable to have no union at all than to have a union that doesn't cover everyone (including non-members). That's not the case outside the US, where unions don't have that legal right.

neuland 8y ago

I thought that a bargaining unit always had to be all workers in a particular job class, such as all software developers in a company (but not designers or hardware devs). But this wasn't based on anything other than observation of US unions. So I guess that's not true! Do you know of any unions that have atypical bargaining units, like covering everyone in a particular line of business or people in 2 very different jobs?

chimeracoder 8y ago
> I thought that a bargaining unit always had to be all workers in a particular job class, such as all software developers in a company (but not designers or hardware devs). But this wasn't based on anything other than observation of US unions. So I guess that's not true! Nope, they definitely can do members-only bargaining. It just doesn't happen often, because the large union syndicates dislike or prohibit it. > Do you know of any unions that have atypical bargaining units, like covering everyone in a particular line of business or people in 2 very different jobs? Offhand, no, but I'm sure I could think of some. Again, in the US, the strategy taken by the major syndicates is to go for an all-or-nothing approach, in which it's preferable to have no union at all than to have a union that doesn't cover everyone (including non-members). That's not the case outside the US, where unions don't have that legal right.