3 ms·
> their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers. I'm curious how you think this differs from tra
by MiroF 6y ago
> their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers.
I'm curious how you think this differs from traditional practices, generally i think of signing security clauses + political influence as basic union 101.
There've always been professional organizers as long as there've been unions. They're hardly "well-paid" by private standards.
- tdeck 6y agoBoth styles of union have a long history, but the alternative practice is to rely more heavily on strikes and other workplace actions, and less on pay-to-play politics. It may be "union 101" to sign no-strike clauses but there are unions like the IWW that have always rejected them.
- zaarn 6y agoWhat you need is a union law similar to germany. In germany, when you apply to a job where a union has created a union employee contract (ie, standardized pay, standardized hours & benefits), then you can choose to use that contract even if you are not part of the union and you are entitled to still do your own contract even if you are in the union. The only time you have to accept certain parts in your contract no choice is if they are mandated by the worker's council, which is voted for democratically by workers from and for a specific company and they can veto anything the company does or demand changes with a 50% share in board votes.
- MiroF 6y agoI don't see how this is different from a US union contract, which is approved by the majority of the local. Generally, the union will not make the dues optional because that is how unions collapse in the US.
- MiroF 6y agoI didn't realize you were referring to no-strike contracts, that's not what a security clause is. That is definitely not a good practice always and not union 101.