5 ms·

I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve Unfortunately, through my own experience being in o

I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve Unfortunately, through my own experience being in one & observing other unions, they often end up serving the organization of the union itself. They may still work for the workers, but also end up making decisions that are better for the union than for the workers. Right now, my kids are learning remotely. However, the school district has encouraged teachers themselves to still report to their classroom to teach from there because seeing that environment lends at least a little bit more normalcy to the experience. You might agree or disagree, but the teachers have the choice. However, teachers are being told & subtly bullied by the union into not doing this for some vague justification that it weakens the union. At least one member I know of has said they're teaching like this, but they hope the union doesn't find out because they would "get in trouble". I think unions can be a good & important tool in equalizing the power imbalance between an individual worker and their larger employers. Unfortunately, those who seek & rise to position of authority within the union structure are often those who end up seeing the union are a "good" unto itself rather than serving the members & their wishes.

racl101 6y ago
worker to the union: "it was said you would destroy the oppressors, not join them!"
JediWing 6y ago
This isn't a power trip by union leadership/ "the organization of the union itself" though? It's a real concern about the safety and working conditions, and how a lack of a unified front can lead to fissures when negotiating that could actually hurt a majority of union members. The unions members probably mostly prefer work from home due to safety concerns. Should the school district wish to demand all teachers report to the building, the negotiation position of the union is significantly weakened if the administration can say "well 25% of your membership is already in the building" as a justification for denying hazard pay, further health and safety precautions, etc.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  The schools are sanitized nightly and those who go in literally don't have to see anyone else, and by policy are not supposed to. "Unified front" That is not the purpose of the union. The union exists to serve it's members. If serving it's members might be slightly more difficult if it actually accommodates the choices of the members it serves, well that's it's job. It's job is not to make it's job easier, it's to serve the members. If the district tries to pressure other members because some make a certain choice, or not provide a safe working environment, That is the fight the union should fight. Not bullying members against making the choice the members feels is the right one to best serve the students. The possibility of adversarial action by the school district is insufficient to justify the union's actions, especially when, in the case of my school district, the district has otherwise been very responsive to the concerns of the union with respect to health & safety protocols.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    no man you don't get it, the union exists to protect the workers and therefore anything a worker does contrary to the union's position is against the worker's own interest by definition just keep paying your dues, shut the fuck up, and we'll take care of the rest
  - JediWing 6y ago
    Is the union preventing teachers from going into the school? Is it not OK for the union to have a position on the matter and communicate it to their members? Why is it ok for the administration to say "we prefer but don't require you to come in" but not ok for the union to say "actually, we prefer but don't require you to stay home"? A unified front is EXACTLY the purpose of a union. The threat of collective action by the entire workforce is what unions derive their power from.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      I don't understand how you can claim that a unified front is their purposes. Their purpose is to serve their workers. Forcing all workers to behave the same way seems a poor interpretation of that duty. Otherwise, sure it's fine to have a position on an issue and communicate it to members. What is not fine is to imply to members that if they make their own choice then the union will never support them should they have a problem, even for an unrelated issue, essentially stripping them of union support. This is what I meant by bullying, and have myself witnessed. But if you insist that a unified front, rather than supporting workers, is their purpose then we fundamentally disagree, and I'll leave things by pointing out that the "unified front" can be to support worker choice & flexibility.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bjourne 6y ago
Labor laws and collective bargaining are two very complicated topics. Perhaps the union gave the teacher you talked to a perfectly rational explanation but it came out as "vague justification" to them because they didn't understand it? I think that is more plausible than the union demanding teachers to work-from-home for no good reason.
byecomputer 6y ago
Having teachers drive to work to talk in front of a webcam is an obviously unnecessary move and a waste of time. They don't need a vague justification, it's pretty evident why this is a non-starter.

racl101 6y ago

worker to the union: "it was said you would destroy the oppressors, not join them!"

JediWing 6y ago

This isn't a power trip by union leadership/ "the organization of the union itself" though? It's a real concern about the safety and working conditions, and how a lack of a unified front can lead to fissures when negotiating that could actually hurt a majority of union members. The unions members probably mostly prefer work from home due to safety concerns. Should the school district wish to demand all teachers report to the building, the negotiation position of the union is significantly weakened if the administration can say "well 25% of your membership is already in the building" as a justification for denying hazard pay, further health and safety precautions, etc.

ineedasername 6y ago
The schools are sanitized nightly and those who go in literally don't have to see anyone else, and by policy are not supposed to. "Unified front" That is not the purpose of the union. The union exists to serve it's members. If serving it's members might be slightly more difficult if it actually accommodates the choices of the members it serves, well that's it's job. It's job is not to make it's job easier, it's to serve the members. If the district tries to pressure other members because some make a certain choice, or not provide a safe working environment, That is the fight the union should fight. Not bullying members against making the choice the members feels is the right one to best serve the students. The possibility of adversarial action by the school district is insufficient to justify the union's actions, especially when, in the case of my school district, the district has otherwise been very responsive to the concerns of the union with respect to health & safety protocols.
- abduhl 6y ago
  no man you don't get it, the union exists to protect the workers and therefore anything a worker does contrary to the union's position is against the worker's own interest by definition just keep paying your dues, shut the fuck up, and we'll take care of the rest
- JediWing 6y ago
  Is the union preventing teachers from going into the school? Is it not OK for the union to have a position on the matter and communicate it to their members? Why is it ok for the administration to say "we prefer but don't require you to come in" but not ok for the union to say "actually, we prefer but don't require you to stay home"? A unified front is EXACTLY the purpose of a union. The threat of collective action by the entire workforce is what unions derive their power from.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I don't understand how you can claim that a unified front is their purposes. Their purpose is to serve their workers. Forcing all workers to behave the same way seems a poor interpretation of that duty. Otherwise, sure it's fine to have a position on an issue and communicate it to members. What is not fine is to imply to members that if they make their own choice then the union will never support them should they have a problem, even for an unrelated issue, essentially stripping them of union support. This is what I meant by bullying, and have myself witnessed. But if you insist that a unified front, rather than supporting workers, is their purpose then we fundamentally disagree, and I'll leave things by pointing out that the "unified front" can be to support worker choice & flexibility.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bjourne 6y ago

Labor laws and collective bargaining are two very complicated topics. Perhaps the union gave the teacher you talked to a perfectly rational explanation but it came out as "vague justification" to them because they didn't understand it? I think that is more plausible than the union demanding teachers to work-from-home for no good reason.

byecomputer 6y ago

Having teachers drive to work to talk in front of a webcam is an obviously unnecessary move and a waste of time. They don't need a vague justification, it's pretty evident why this is a non-starter.