7 ms·

> If you think of union protections as something like a private form of OSHA, or say private car insurance, then opting out of paying for them while still recei

> If you think of union protections as something like a private form of OSHA, or say private car insurance, then opting out of paying for them while still receiving benefits is self-evidently not sustainable. Not enough people pay (essentially the same as having too many scabs) so unions can't maintain their bargaining power. Unions are permitted to refuse representation to non-members, as long as they don't include them in the bargaining unit. If they do, then they are required to represent them. So far, unions have ignored this and pretended that they are forced to represent non-members, because it makes it easier for them to "demonstrate" that they have to have exclusive representation over all members of the bargaining unit. In other words, they intentionally sabotage unions in right-to-work states, because they don't want to admit that they have the legal ability to engage in members-only contracts in right-to-work states, because then they'd have to admit that they have the ability to engage in members-only-contracts in all states. The easy alternative is for unions in right-to-work states to require membership (and fees and dues) for inclusion in the bargaining unit. They would then have no obligation to represent people who don't join the union or don't pay fees and dues.

rconti 8y ago
Thanks for this comment. I did not know this. I've never worked in a union job. My wife is now working in her first-ever union job and didn't want to be part of the union, but didn't have the "option". My overall views of unions throughout my life have not been positive, however my opinion of them is slowly improving somewhat.
aspaceman 8y ago
A members-only contract wouldn't be able to be negotiated as the employer wouldn't come to the table unless strike was a risk.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
A members-only union is unlikely to last. From the perspective of the employer they have two employee groups - union and non-union. If they pay non-union employees less those employees are just going to join the union, get increased pay and now the union is even stronger than before. Actually the best strategy from the business' perspective is to set pay/benefits for union members and non-union members at the same rate. As union members bargain for more, non-union members freeride, as non-union members freeride, union members defect, and you kill the union's bargaining power. This is actually why we need traditional compulsory unions if a unionization vote succeeds, it's the only way to maintain the bargaining power of the workers. If you don't like that working for a certain employer requires paying union dues you take the same action as if you don't like the health plan or pay offered by a certain employer, you look somewhere else.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > A members-only union is unlikely to last. This is literally how unions work in most of the developed world outside the US.
- pc86 8y ago
  Union members have no incentive to leave the union except to save dues. If your dues are reasonable why would anyone leave? > This is actually why we need traditional compulsory unions if a unionization vote succeeds Never. If I don't want to join a union, who are you to force me to join and steal money out of my paycheck to boot?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >Union members have no incentive to leave the union except to save dues. If your dues are reasonable why would anyone leave? Because they can keep their dues? Why is anyone going to pay several hundred dollars for a group which they perceive is doing nothing for them? (this is in the situation where an employer is trying to bust the union by paying both groups the same) >Never. If I don't want to join a union, who are you to force me to join and steal money out of my paycheck to boot? If you read the rest you can see that you're not forced to join the union in the same way you're not forced to accept subpar pay. Just go work somewhere else.
    - pc86 8y ago
      Someone could just as easily say "if you want to be unionized, go work somewhere else." That's not an acceptable answer then and it's certainly not an acceptable answer for you when explaining why you want to steal money from your coworkers.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
        >Someone could just as easily say "if you want to be unionized, go work somewhere else." Well actually there's plenty of times when you literally couldn't go work for a union shop, there's not many left. >why you want to steal money from your coworkers. Actually in a shop with union members and free-riding non-union members it's the non-union members who are stealing. They are utilizing a public good (the power of collective bargaining) without contributing. In this sense making a workplace union compulsory is the best way to prevent workers from stealing from one another. Also introducing compulsory unions moves us from a situation where (1) employers have massively more bargaining power than a worker and workers are structurally compelled to compete against each other to one where (2) bargaining power becomes much more equalized and workers can collectively choose in which situations it is appropriate for them to compete with each other. Changing that compulsory union back into members only just moves us back to (1). It does this because it grants structural control back to the corporation and it's in the corporation's interest to make union bargaining power a non-excludable public good which introduces free-rider problems and destroys the union.
komali2 8y ago
Why would the company bother hiring union members in this case?
losvedir 8y ago
I'm sorry this comment is being down voted. It's possible that its tone is very slightly questionable, but the meat of the comment is actually an interesting point I'd never heard before. So, TIL. Thanks.
pseudalopex 8y ago
This is very misleading. Employers are under no obligation to recognize members-only unions. Also, the prevailing legal opinion seems to be that a members-only union can't negotiate better pay or working conditions just for members.

rconti 8y ago

Thanks for this comment. I did not know this. I've never worked in a union job. My wife is now working in her first-ever union job and didn't want to be part of the union, but didn't have the "option". My overall views of unions throughout my life have not been positive, however my opinion of them is slowly improving somewhat.

aspaceman 8y ago

A members-only contract wouldn't be able to be negotiated as the employer wouldn't come to the table unless strike was a risk.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

A members-only union is unlikely to last. From the perspective of the employer they have two employee groups - union and non-union. If they pay non-union employees less those employees are just going to join the union, get increased pay and now the union is even stronger than before. Actually the best strategy from the business' perspective is to set pay/benefits for union members and non-union members at the same rate. As union members bargain for more, non-union members freeride, as non-union members freeride, union members defect, and you kill the union's bargaining power. This is actually why we need traditional compulsory unions if a unionization vote succeeds, it's the only way to maintain the bargaining power of the workers. If you don't like that working for a certain employer requires paying union dues you take the same action as if you don't like the health plan or pay offered by a certain employer, you look somewhere else.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> A members-only union is unlikely to last. This is literally how unions work in most of the developed world outside the US.
pc86 8y ago
Union members have no incentive to leave the union except to save dues. If your dues are reasonable why would anyone leave? > This is actually why we need traditional compulsory unions if a unionization vote succeeds Never. If I don't want to join a union, who are you to force me to join and steal money out of my paycheck to boot?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >Union members have no incentive to leave the union except to save dues. If your dues are reasonable why would anyone leave? Because they can keep their dues? Why is anyone going to pay several hundred dollars for a group which they perceive is doing nothing for them? (this is in the situation where an employer is trying to bust the union by paying both groups the same) >Never. If I don't want to join a union, who are you to force me to join and steal money out of my paycheck to boot? If you read the rest you can see that you're not forced to join the union in the same way you're not forced to accept subpar pay. Just go work somewhere else.
  - pc86 8y ago
    Someone could just as easily say "if you want to be unionized, go work somewhere else." That's not an acceptable answer then and it's certainly not an acceptable answer for you when explaining why you want to steal money from your coworkers.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
      >Someone could just as easily say "if you want to be unionized, go work somewhere else." Well actually there's plenty of times when you literally couldn't go work for a union shop, there's not many left. >why you want to steal money from your coworkers. Actually in a shop with union members and free-riding non-union members it's the non-union members who are stealing. They are utilizing a public good (the power of collective bargaining) without contributing. In this sense making a workplace union compulsory is the best way to prevent workers from stealing from one another. Also introducing compulsory unions moves us from a situation where (1) employers have massively more bargaining power than a worker and workers are structurally compelled to compete against each other to one where (2) bargaining power becomes much more equalized and workers can collectively choose in which situations it is appropriate for them to compete with each other. Changing that compulsory union back into members only just moves us back to (1). It does this because it grants structural control back to the corporation and it's in the corporation's interest to make union bargaining power a non-excludable public good which introduces free-rider problems and destroys the union.

komali2 8y ago

Why would the company bother hiring union members in this case?

losvedir 8y ago

I'm sorry this comment is being down voted. It's possible that its tone is very slightly questionable, but the meat of the comment is actually an interesting point I'd never heard before. So, TIL. Thanks.

pseudalopex 8y ago

This is very misleading. Employers are under no obligation to recognize members-only unions. Also, the prevailing legal opinion seems to be that a members-only union can't negotiate better pay or working conditions just for members.