5 ms·

I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize" in the US. Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I understand is not

I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize" in the US. Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I understand is not exactly enticing right now): - you are free to join or not - there are elected workers' representatives whether there are unions are not - unions serve to organize workers for action and representatives elections, support candidates, and provide additional services as well In this context, there is no one big vote to unionize or not, and no "union jobs". How does it work in the US?

random5634 6y ago
The US is a bit different. 1) Many unions are govt unions - think police, prison guard, teachers. 2) For closed shop states, if a union wins election, EVERYONE has to join the union. 3) A history of corruption in unions in some cases. 4) There is a perception in the US that unions and lazy workers overlap. Teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions - they need to have some real good examples of the successes unions can bring. Internationally (at least in EU in my experience) there really are those. In the US it's a bit muddied. The latest example I saw, a parent wanted to try and get schools to reopen. Union called them racist - "she was being racist and not considering “the needs of brown/black families who 'predominantly want to stay home' as evidenced by the several months old OUSD survey that was sent out to all district parents." Stuff like this is kind of eye rolling. The union starts calling folks racist for wanting their kids in school? Do the black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these claims?
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  All states are open shop or agency shop. Federal law prohibits closed shop.
- banannaise 6y ago
  > Do the black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these claims? For the most part, yes. Black/brown communities have higher COVID infection and death rates, so sending children to school disproportionately harms Black and brown people, and a lot of them have expressed this exact concern.
rendang 6y ago
Not knowing what country you are in, I would bet that the situation of unions there ultimately is a result of the global labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, which came to be via strikes and grassroots union organizing activities.
- jeanjogr 6y ago
  Is that not the case in the US as well?
  - rendang 6y ago
    Of course, yes, I am trying to say that what you are describing as US-style unionization is closer to how unions have historically worked. It would be your country's situation that is exceptional, because apparently workers there have won so much power, that militant/grassroots organizing is less necessary.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
In the US, when a company unionizes a job class, all applicable employees must then pay the union for representing them in negotiations. Only one union can represent a class of workers. In 27/50 states workers who opt out of union membership loose the power to vote in union matters, but still are governed by union negotiations and must pay the unions "agency fees" for representing them. They no longer have to pay for political campaigning and lobbying by the union on other activism. In 23/50 states, workers can not opt out of union dues and the union can spend the dues to campaign for political figures and issues. Unions generally support Democratic politicians and agendas, and unions have high approval Among members of the Democratic Party. Republican Party members disfavor unions and resent obligatory union dues used to fund the party they do not support. I much prefer the European concept of unions, where employees can pick and choose between different options
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing. 23 states allow private sector unions to charge agency fees. Charging non members for political activities is illegal federally. And the Supreme Court decided everything public sector unions do is political.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Thank you for the correction, I misremembered the definitions 27 states are "right-to-work" states [1] The remaining 23 allow "Union Security Agreements" between employers and unions where all employees are required to be members. [2] The 23 states without right-to-work allow agency fees. However, these 23 states also allow "union shops", where non-membership is not an option, so everyone can be charged for political activates. Another big change since I last looked is that the US supreme court struck down agency fees for all government employees in 2018, including the 23 states. [1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement

random5634 6y ago

The US is a bit different. 1) Many unions are govt unions - think police, prison guard, teachers. 2) For closed shop states, if a union wins election, EVERYONE has to join the union. 3) A history of corruption in unions in some cases. 4) There is a perception in the US that unions and lazy workers overlap. Teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions - they need to have some real good examples of the successes unions can bring. Internationally (at least in EU in my experience) there really are those. In the US it's a bit muddied. The latest example I saw, a parent wanted to try and get schools to reopen. Union called them racist - "she was being racist and not considering “the needs of brown/black families who 'predominantly want to stay home' as evidenced by the several months old OUSD survey that was sent out to all district parents." Stuff like this is kind of eye rolling. The union starts calling folks racist for wanting their kids in school? Do the black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these claims?

pseudalopex 6y ago
All states are open shop or agency shop. Federal law prohibits closed shop.
banannaise 6y ago
> Do the black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these claims? For the most part, yes. Black/brown communities have higher COVID infection and death rates, so sending children to school disproportionately harms Black and brown people, and a lot of them have expressed this exact concern.

rendang 6y ago

Not knowing what country you are in, I would bet that the situation of unions there ultimately is a result of the global labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, which came to be via strikes and grassroots union organizing activities.

jeanjogr 6y ago
Is that not the case in the US as well?
- rendang 6y ago
  Of course, yes, I am trying to say that what you are describing as US-style unionization is closer to how unions have historically worked. It would be your country's situation that is exceptional, because apparently workers there have won so much power, that militant/grassroots organizing is less necessary.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

In the US, when a company unionizes a job class, all applicable employees must then pay the union for representing them in negotiations. Only one union can represent a class of workers. In 27/50 states workers who opt out of union membership loose the power to vote in union matters, but still are governed by union negotiations and must pay the unions "agency fees" for representing them. They no longer have to pay for political campaigning and lobbying by the union on other activism. In 23/50 states, workers can not opt out of union dues and the union can spend the dues to campaign for political figures and issues. Unions generally support Democratic politicians and agendas, and unions have high approval Among members of the Democratic Party. Republican Party members disfavor unions and resent obligatory union dues used to fund the party they do not support. I much prefer the European concept of unions, where employees can pick and choose between different options

pseudalopex 6y ago
You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing. 23 states allow private sector unions to charge agency fees. Charging non members for political activities is illegal federally. And the Supreme Court decided everything public sector unions do is political.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Thank you for the correction, I misremembered the definitions 27 states are "right-to-work" states [1] The remaining 23 allow "Union Security Agreements" between employers and unions where all employees are required to be members. [2] The 23 states without right-to-work allow agency fees. However, these 23 states also allow "union shops", where non-membership is not an option, so everyone can be charged for political activates. Another big change since I last looked is that the US supreme court struck down agency fees for all government employees in 2018, including the 23 states. [1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement