3 ms·

If you have colleagues that have children, would advancing paternity leave also represent the interests of the group? If you have colleagues that are diabetic,

If you have colleagues that have children, would advancing paternity leave also represent the interests of the group? If you have colleagues that are diabetic, would advancing policies for cheaper insulin not represent the interests of the group? Maybe the answer is no, but for those colleagues who are have more complicated needs the answer might be yes. Lastly, if a union doesn't at least represent a re-balance of power then it is ineffectual.

Kalium 7y ago
When I have colleagues that have children, I would expect our union to negotiate for parental leave policies. I might expect some minor amount of support to go towards encouraging local politicians to advance that item, but it should be little more than an endorsement of the idea. When I have colleagues who suffer from diabetes, I would expect our union to ensure excellent health care is provided as part of the contract. I would not expect our union to try to involve itself in something drastically removed from its core competency like how research is managed and pharmaceuticals are regulated. I would certainly not want our union to expend resources on the matter - there are guaranteed to be more substantive matters closer to home that would benefit from those same resources. You're absolutely right. A union can, should, and must represent a rebalancing of power. It's just perhaps possible that it's not appropriate for this rebalancing to extend into every possible sphere. This is doubly true in a context of limited resources.