2 ms·

In the US, you don’t really have the luxury of picking a different union. This is one reason unions suck in the US.

• vidarh 4y ago
  You do, sort of (though I get what you mean) even as an individual, even though it's less common and affects the benefits you get from being a member, and you may risk still paying dues to the recognised union (if there is one, and your state allows agency fees). At the larger scale, your choice is to try to convince your co-workers. The downside of joining a minority union / members only union is not that different in the US as elsewhere, in that you generally have no legal right to be treated as a bargaining agent or in the case of some such unions they explicitly don't even try get recognition. But even the US has examples of minority unions being voluntarily given some degree of representation: https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswagen-organizing-policy-representation/18901197/ https://eu.freep.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/12/uaw-volkswa...
  • Robotbeat 4y ago
    So in other words… we have effective union monopolization in the US.
    • vidarh 4y ago
      Not all that much more so than in a substantial proportion of other countries with far more powerful unions, and which often have multiple unions represented in the same companies. Most places have thresholds to be met before an employer can be forced to recognise a given union. It's not unusual for that threshold to be 50% per unit and for people to still opt to stay members in a minority union, which you can in the US too. The main way the US distinguishes itself in terms of unionisation is by low union membership, and as such the lack of significant minority union locals in the US is more a factor of few people joining a union unless they'd be paying agency fees anyway.