3 ms·

In America, the principle of "exclusive representation" applies to all labor unions. If employees in department X at firm Y wish to unionize, they elect one de

In America, the principle of "exclusive representation" applies to all labor unions. If employees in department X at firm Y wish to unionize, they elect one democratically. This often involves affiliating themselves with an established union (choosing the affiliate is part of the formation/election process). If a majority of employees in department X vote for unionization, a contract between all employees in department X and management is negotiated. This newly elected union is now considered the exclusive representative of all employees covered by the agreement (i.e. in the bargaining unit). This has the following key implications: 1) No other unions may be formed within this department, and all negotiations between management and covered employees must go through the union. 2) The union has a legal obligation to fully represent each one of the employees in department X fairly and equally. In the states that allow it, this means that even if an employee in department X is not a member of the union, the union still must represent and negotiate on behalf of them as if they were a dues-paying active member. Employees who feel they are not being represented can sue their union for inadequate representation (in the same way that you can sue an incompetent lawyer). (Point #2 is designed to balance out the problems that could come with just point #1.) I go into all of this to contrast our system with Germany's system, where no exclusive representation exists. Some employees in a department may be represented by union X, others by union Y, some may be non-union. The company that employs them will have to negotiate three different contracts to keep this theoretical department running. This system has its upsides: German unions never have to negotiate on behalf of non-members. It can also get extremely complicated. A large company may have to juggle many contracts just for one type of employee. The union that represents some arbitrary group of employees might change from year to year. These are just a few things that American companies don't have to deal with. Maybe this is the system we have to move to in America post-Janus? I don't know, but it's worth remembering that exclusive representation was designed as a convenience to management in simplifying negotiations; I don't think our corporate leaders would prefer it at all.

dragonwriter 8y ago
Note that there is, contrary to this description, no requirement for union lines to be drawn on internal organizational (“department”) lines, instead, they are generally drawn on job-role lines.
- aerotwelve 8y ago
  Yes, this is an oversimplification. I used department to avoid getting into the legal definition of a bargaining unit, which is extremely situational and tricky to define. In my example, assume everyone in department X does more or less the same thing :)
ken 8y ago
> 2) The union has a legal obligation to fully represent each one of the employees in department X fairly and equally. Sure, but what do you see as the difference in representation from person to person? Something that's beneficial to one worker (better conditions, more pay, etc) is almost always beneficial to their coworkers, too. Isn't negotiating a contract to the benefit of any of the workers pretty much automatically to the benefit of all of them? > Employees who feel they are not being represented can sue their union for inadequate representation This sounds like one of those facts which is technically true but practically useless. I googled it and found a number of answers that all say essentially: the courts recognize that unions have finite resources, and grant them leeway in choosing what to pursue. You probably will never win a case against your union, even for just being bad at what they do, unless they specifically discriminated against you on the basis of a protected class. I've never heard of it happening, and I can't find any cases on the internet, either. > This system has its upsides: German unions never have to negotiate on behalf of non-members. What does this mean in practice? "We'd like better working conditions, but only for the names on this list"?

dragonwriter 8y ago

Note that there is, contrary to this description, no requirement for union lines to be drawn on internal organizational (“department”) lines, instead, they are generally drawn on job-role lines.

aerotwelve 8y ago
Yes, this is an oversimplification. I used department to avoid getting into the legal definition of a bargaining unit, which is extremely situational and tricky to define. In my example, assume everyone in department X does more or less the same thing :)

ken 8y ago

> 2) The union has a legal obligation to fully represent each one of the employees in department X fairly and equally. Sure, but what do you see as the difference in representation from person to person? Something that's beneficial to one worker (better conditions, more pay, etc) is almost always beneficial to their coworkers, too. Isn't negotiating a contract to the benefit of any of the workers pretty much automatically to the benefit of all of them? > Employees who feel they are not being represented can sue their union for inadequate representation This sounds like one of those facts which is technically true but practically useless. I googled it and found a number of answers that all say essentially: the courts recognize that unions have finite resources, and grant them leeway in choosing what to pursue. You probably will never win a case against your union, even for just being bad at what they do, unless they specifically discriminated against you on the basis of a protected class. I've never heard of it happening, and I can't find any cases on the internet, either. > This system has its upsides: German unions never have to negotiate on behalf of non-members. What does this mean in practice? "We'd like better working conditions, but only for the names on this list"?