4 ms·
I think I misunderstand exactly what a union is, because my understanding of what a union is, doesn't seem to imply being unable to create one without majority
by drdeca 8y ago
I think I misunderstand exactly what a union is, because my understanding of what a union is, doesn't seem to imply being unable to create one without majority support.
Is a union not just a collection of employees who have entered into a contract together which requires that they do certain things as part of collective bargaining actions.
I don't see why that would inherently require a majority of the employees, or even a majority of the employees in a certain occupation.
Is the 50% requirement due to some enshrinement of unions in law?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pseudalopex 8y agoMinority unions don't have the same legal status in the US. The contract would be unenforceable.
- drdeca 8y agoThat seems counterintuitive to me. Why does there being other people employed by the same people prevent me and the group I'm in from entering into contract together? Why are unions treated differently than other contracts? I'm assuming this is because of some historical accident that came about with a struggle between people who wanted to prevent all such contracts and people who wanted unions to have special privileges over other sorts of contracts?
- pseudalopex 8y agoA majority union isn't a kind of contract. It represents all workers in a bargaining unit, even workers who voted against it. In theory, this simplifies negotiations and helps make sure all workers are fairly represented. Some union supporters worry that allowing minority unions would weaken established unions. Union opponents have focused on passing "right to work" laws, which require majority unions to represent non-members for free. The status quo probably makes unions stronger in pro-union states and weaker in anti-union states.
- drdeca 8y agoThank you for explaining! Your explanation is quite helpful.