5 ms·

Aren't unions opt-in?

by lopis 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago
What's the point of the vote, then?
- mdpye 4y ago
  Those who have opted in choose to be bound by the vote in exchange for the increased bargaining power that a consistent position affords, right? In the car analogy, you're missing the "free to not have any car at all even though you would like one" option.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Again, what's the point of a vote to form a union, if you can be in a union or not as you choose? The ones who want a union can just make one.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Yeah, that is how it works in Europe. In Europe we protected workers against unions, so workers don't have to be as afraid of unions. In USA they protected unions against workers, so that unions don't have to be afraid of workers, no wonder unions aren't popular then...
    - mdpye 4y ago
      Right, I misunderstood which vote were were talking about, sorry. I thought we were talking about voting on union action (e.g. to strike, or to accept a specific deal in a negotiation)
Dma54rhs 4y ago
Unions in America are way different compared to Europe. It's worth reading about it.
- hughjd 4y ago
  Do you have a link or something to google at all? I tried variations of 'us vs europe union differences' but not getting anything relevant.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    EU has right to work, that is a major one. I think the reason you don't see people talk about that online is that the left don't want to admit that right to work is pro workers, and the right don't want to use EU as a positive example.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      There's a lot more to it than that. EU legislation establishes individual rights for all workers, with a maximum working week of 48 hours, paid annual leave of at least four weeks per year, rest periods and rules on night work, shift work and patterns of work. Who needs unions with great labor laws already in place? Of course the right in the US want none of that. A lot of EU law already in place is a wish list for US employees who join a union.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        But that just makes right to work seem even better, EU where workers don't need to pay unions to get rights still pay their unions and are way more willing to join unions. So to me demonising right to work doesn't make sense, California could add those worker protections if they wanted, I see no reason at all why they need workers to give up their rights so that unions can take their money.
        tchaffee 4y ago
        You need the strong labor laws first which the US does not have. Right to work in the US is popular in states with the worst labor laws and mostly the poor states. Right to work could be good under the right conditions. Which the EU already largely has. In fact many EU countries have far stronger labor laws than the EU laws themselves. That's the context within which right to work starts to make sense.
caskstrength 4y ago
I'm not from US, but I would assume unions are only opt-in in right-to-work states. NYC is not one of them.
cool_dude85 4y ago
Common misconception, also seen among many of the replies. Unions are not opt-in, unless you consider "taking a union job" opt-in. If this vote goes through (and a contract agreed), and you take a unionized job in the unionized warehouse, you will be covered by the union contract. If management violates the contract in a way that harms you, the union will be filing a grievance on your behalf. If you ask for a union rep to be in the room when discipline is discussed, they must send a rep. You will vote on a proposed contract. In short, the union has the responsibility to represent you, based on your being in a union job. A "right to work" state is one where the union cannot sign a contract with the employer forcing you to pay union dues in order to get the representation you are entitled to. So, you have the right, in a "right to work" state, to avail yourself of the union representation without paying dues. That's exactly what "right to work" means, and no more.

Aren't unions opt-in?

by lopis 4y ago

Aren't unions opt-in?

WalterBright 4y ago

What's the point of the vote, then?

mdpye 4y ago
Those who have opted in choose to be bound by the vote in exchange for the increased bargaining power that a consistent position affords, right? In the car analogy, you're missing the "free to not have any car at all even though you would like one" option.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Again, what's the point of a vote to form a union, if you can be in a union or not as you choose? The ones who want a union can just make one.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Yeah, that is how it works in Europe. In Europe we protected workers against unions, so workers don't have to be as afraid of unions. In USA they protected unions against workers, so that unions don't have to be afraid of workers, no wonder unions aren't popular then...
  - mdpye 4y ago
    Right, I misunderstood which vote were were talking about, sorry. I thought we were talking about voting on union action (e.g. to strike, or to accept a specific deal in a negotiation)

Dma54rhs 4y ago

Unions in America are way different compared to Europe. It's worth reading about it.

hughjd 4y ago
Do you have a link or something to google at all? I tried variations of 'us vs europe union differences' but not getting anything relevant.
- Jensson 4y ago
  EU has right to work, that is a major one. I think the reason you don't see people talk about that online is that the left don't want to admit that right to work is pro workers, and the right don't want to use EU as a positive example.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    There's a lot more to it than that. EU legislation establishes individual rights for all workers, with a maximum working week of 48 hours, paid annual leave of at least four weeks per year, rest periods and rules on night work, shift work and patterns of work. Who needs unions with great labor laws already in place? Of course the right in the US want none of that. A lot of EU law already in place is a wish list for US employees who join a union.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      But that just makes right to work seem even better, EU where workers don't need to pay unions to get rights still pay their unions and are way more willing to join unions. So to me demonising right to work doesn't make sense, California could add those worker protections if they wanted, I see no reason at all why they need workers to give up their rights so that unions can take their money.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        You need the strong labor laws first which the US does not have. Right to work in the US is popular in states with the worst labor laws and mostly the poor states. Right to work could be good under the right conditions. Which the EU already largely has. In fact many EU countries have far stronger labor laws than the EU laws themselves. That's the context within which right to work starts to make sense.

caskstrength 4y ago

I'm not from US, but I would assume unions are only opt-in in right-to-work states. NYC is not one of them.

cool_dude85 4y ago

Common misconception, also seen among many of the replies. Unions are not opt-in, unless you consider "taking a union job" opt-in. If this vote goes through (and a contract agreed), and you take a unionized job in the unionized warehouse, you will be covered by the union contract. If management violates the contract in a way that harms you, the union will be filing a grievance on your behalf. If you ask for a union rep to be in the room when discipline is discussed, they must send a rep. You will vote on a proposed contract. In short, the union has the responsibility to represent you, based on your being in a union job. A "right to work" state is one where the union cannot sign a contract with the employer forcing you to pay union dues in order to get the representation you are entitled to. So, you have the right, in a "right to work" state, to avail yourself of the union representation without paying dues. That's exactly what "right to work" means, and no more.