6 ms·

> all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Is that legal? Can unions or companies force you to join the union as a condition of employment?

benglish11 5y ago
It depends on the state. This is what “right to work” laws are about.
mikeryan 5y ago
A business can be a “closed shop” and require payment of a fee. Though you don’t, technically have to be a member. The fees are not “dues” they’re essentially “agency fees” or “fair share fee” that make up for the benefits you’re getting due to the union. The fees are usually very close to Union dues so most people just join to get all the rights. Exceptions are “Right to Work” states which explicitly outlaw closed shops.
CountSessine 5y ago
Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.
- anamax 5y ago
  You write "compensated to 'opt-out'" like it's a bad thing. Unions are a tool, not a goal.
- dgrin91 5y ago
  > compensated to “opt-out”. Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?
  - eru 5y ago
    Well, the theory is that management will make the conditions worse after breaking up the union. Very similar to the myth of 'predatory pricing'.
- kortilla 5y ago
  That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.
  - morgante 5y ago
    Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?
      - morgante 5y ago
        The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
        djrobstep 5y ago
        Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
        limelight 5y ago
        I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Sure, just like companies can require you to work at certain times as a condition of employment, or wear a uniform as a condition of employment, or a hundred other things. Letting it go the other way just results in freeloader syndrome: unions fight for improved work policies and work culture for all, but you can get much of the benefits without paying in. So many people don’t, which ends up weakening the union in the long run.
- eru 5y ago
  You are right that free-loading is a problem in theory. But being forced to pay for services you don't actually want is also a problem.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It's being forced the same way any other terms of employment are forced on you, and your option in this case is the same: go somewhere else. We know from history and other countries that broadly speaking, if you weaken unions with right-to-work laws, workers as a whole end up worse off. It tilts the power relationship between employees and employer towards the employer. If you look at peer countries with stronger, more present unions, you find that workers are usually considerably better off there.
    - eru 5y ago
      > We know from history and other countries that broadly speaking, if you weaken unions with right-to-work laws, workers as a whole end up worse off. > If you look at peer countries with stronger, more present unions, you find that workers are usually considerably better off there. Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ Also compare European countries. The more neoliberal ones tend to be richer. > It's being forced the same way any other terms of employment are forced on you, and your option in this case is the same: go somewhere else. In some sense, yes. And you can read my comment as an argument in favour of me avoiding union shops.
- baud147258 5y ago

benglish11 5y ago

It depends on the state. This is what “right to work” laws are about.

mikeryan 5y ago

A business can be a “closed shop” and require payment of a fee. Though you don’t, technically have to be a member. The fees are not “dues” they’re essentially “agency fees” or “fair share fee” that make up for the benefits you’re getting due to the union. The fees are usually very close to Union dues so most people just join to get all the rights. Exceptions are “Right to Work” states which explicitly outlaw closed shops.

CountSessine 5y ago

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.

anamax 5y ago
You write "compensated to 'opt-out'" like it's a bad thing. Unions are a tool, not a goal.
dgrin91 5y ago
> compensated to “opt-out”. Didn't you basically just describe the goal of a union? Better conditions for their workers?
- eru 5y ago
  Well, the theory is that management will make the conditions worse after breaking up the union. Very similar to the myth of 'predatory pricing'.
kortilla 5y ago
That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.
- morgante 5y ago
  Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?
    - morgante 5y ago
      The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization. Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction. But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        Why is the union a parasite, but not the company’s shareholders? In both cases employees are forced to send them revenue. So why is one good but the other bad?
        limelight 5y ago
        I wouldn't consider shareholders good or bad, but neutral. The revenue you send them today is compensation for the capital they provided to get the business to where it is today (or, in many cases, liquidity for earlier employees who built the company). They provided meaningful value to secure that revenue stream. Meanwhile, the union provides no value to the business.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Sure, just like companies can require you to work at certain times as a condition of employment, or wear a uniform as a condition of employment, or a hundred other things. Letting it go the other way just results in freeloader syndrome: unions fight for improved work policies and work culture for all, but you can get much of the benefits without paying in. So many people don’t, which ends up weakening the union in the long run.

eru 5y ago
You are right that free-loading is a problem in theory. But being forced to pay for services you don't actually want is also a problem.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's being forced the same way any other terms of employment are forced on you, and your option in this case is the same: go somewhere else. We know from history and other countries that broadly speaking, if you weaken unions with right-to-work laws, workers as a whole end up worse off. It tilts the power relationship between employees and employer towards the employer. If you look at peer countries with stronger, more present unions, you find that workers are usually considerably better off there.
  - eru 5y ago
    > We know from history and other countries that broadly speaking, if you weaken unions with right-to-work laws, workers as a whole end up worse off. > If you look at peer countries with stronger, more present unions, you find that workers are usually considerably better off there. Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ Also compare European countries. The more neoliberal ones tend to be richer. > It's being forced the same way any other terms of employment are forced on you, and your option in this case is the same: go somewhere else. In some sense, yes. And you can read my comment as an argument in favour of me avoiding union shops.
baud147258 5y ago