4 ms·

>The US left pushes hard against right to work Because right to work is a union-busting tactic >meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/

>The US left pushes hard against right to work Because right to work is a union-busting tactic >meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed This is wrong in a number of ways. First off, the formation of a union does not require that all employees instantaneously join it. Second, the union still needs to have an agreement with an employer. So if your workplace doesn't unionize, it doesn't matter if the one on the other side of town does. It doesn't magically just flip an "isUnion" bit and completely change everyone's employment situation in one fell swoop. >if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join If you workplace unionizes, then you _may_ be forced to join. There is no guarantee that a union would force joining to keep your job, although historically that has been the case. Much of that was due to a lot of the improvements that unions were negotiating for being very hard to "split" between union an non-union members (i.e. safer machines in a factory were a benefit to everyone, not just union members). In a tech union, who's to say that has to be that way. If unions negotiated for things like always having the latest hardware for members, it would be easier for non-union members at the same shop to be given whatever hardware your employer decided. Basically, a tech union may not be bound to the same constraints as traditional unions might have been. >likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union. But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.

username90 6y ago
> Because right to work is a union-busting tactic No it isn't, right to work exists in the entire EU since EU enforces it. Union participation is still way higher here than in USA. Obviously right to work isn't hurting union participation that much, or unions would be dead over here. Banning right to work is just there to protect corrupt unions from members being able to leave a corrupt union on their own. > But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other. Because other members wanted to be a part of the union. If 70% wanted the union but 30% were forced to join then those 30% still didn't want the union afterwards, it is that simple.

username90 6y ago

> Because right to work is a union-busting tactic No it isn't, right to work exists in the entire EU since EU enforces it. Union participation is still way higher here than in USA. Obviously right to work isn't hurting union participation that much, or unions would be dead over here. Banning right to work is just there to protect corrupt unions from members being able to leave a corrupt union on their own. > But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other. Because other members wanted to be a part of the union. If 70% wanted the union but 30% were forced to join then those 30% still didn't want the union afterwards, it is that simple.