8 ms·

I admit I just don't understand how unions are formed or how they work. Once I saw picketing (not sure if I'm using the term properly) outside of a grocery stor

I admit I just don't understand how unions are formed or how they work. Once I saw picketing (not sure if I'm using the term properly) outside of a grocery store. When I asked what their complaint was, I found out they didn't work there and I got confused. What does "a majority of the workers" mean? Is that a majority in a particular establishment, or employees of a company (across many locations) or an industry? And if they vote Yes, do they then choose what kind of union to be (Teamsters, etc.) and doesn't it get kind of complicated? What happens to the people that vote No?

creato 3y ago
> What happens to the people that vote No? I think this is what the difference between “right to work” states and not is. In “right to work” states, unions cannot stop someone from working at an employer. In non-right to work states, unions have more power to determine that, but I don’t understand how exactly. Personally I find it pretty hard to reason through this. On one hand, right to work seems utterly reasonable, how can a third party tell an employer and employee that they can’t conduct business to their mutual satisfaction? But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. So if you feel that employers have too much power over employees and unions are a good answer to that, but also think it’s absurd to allow a third party to block an employment contract, then it seems like there are no options left.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  Federal law allows for arrangements where employees can be required to join the union after being hired, or can choose to not join but have to pay the union a fee for their representation. "Right-to-work" states change this and don't allow those arrangements: employees are free to not join and not pay. The "closed shop," where only members of the union are hired, is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law.
  - wincy 3y ago
    Yeah good luck working a job where everyone else is union and you’re not though, you’ll find your lunch missing and people will be total jerks to you at every possible turn…
  - Animats 3y ago
    Right. - Closed shop - must belong to union to be hired. Outlawed in US in 1947. - Union shop - must join union after being hired. Not allowed in right-to-work US states. - Open shop - can optionally join union. - Yellow-dog contract - forbidden to join union. Outlawed in US in 1932. Violated by some US employers. US labor law dates from an era of strong unions, and basically outlines a set of rules under which management and labor can battle it out. Management won. In 1954, about 35% of US private sector workers belonged to a union. Today, that's about 6%. In Canada, 14% of private sector workers belong to a union today. In Germany, about 50%.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. Not inherently. If a union is providing clear value to the employees, they'll presumably want to be a member. If an employee doesn't want to be a member, presumably they don't feel it provides them with commensurate value.
stevenwoo 3y ago
What happened in your first sentence was ruled impermissable in the USA due to Taft-Hartley in 1947 as I understand it, strikers can only picket where the company they are striking against does business. So you really need to be less vague.
- mattmcknight 3y ago
  Absolutely not true. They used to picket the store where I worked because we weren't union. It was so annoying.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The point of picketing is to be annoying.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    It's called "recognitional picketing". Quoting https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/recognitional-picketing-section-8b7 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/re... > Recognitional picketing (Section 8(b)(7)) > Picketing to force an employer to recognize - or employees to select - a union is permitted under certain circumstances. As with secondary boycotts, the law here is a bit complex. > Section 8(b)(7) of the Act makes it unlawful for a labor organization or its agents "to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c); (B) where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) has been conducted; or (C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of such picketing: ...
- eesmith 3y ago
edent 3y ago
It depends on the country you're in but, briefly put... A group of workers come together. They form a collective known as a Trade Union. They can say "pay us a better wage or we'll stop working for you". Or "stop managers from sexually harassing us or we won't do any overtime". They use collective bargaining to extract better value or conditions from their employer. Some unions are tiny - they might just cover a single office. Others are huge - they might cover an entire industry. Because labour laws are complex it is sometimes better for people to be in a large union. There are unions which cover single companies and there are unions which cover industries. There are even "miscellaneous" unions. Generally speaking, if a majority of workers vote to join a union then the company has to recognise that union (I'm glossing over the detail of what a majority means because different countries have different rules). Recognising a union means (again, depending on the law) that the company has to consult with the employees before making certain changes. It might also mean that the union gets to represent workers when negotiating pay. In most countries, an individual can choose whether to join a union or not. If they don't join, they don't pay any union fees - but they also don't get the protection of the union's lawyers. Some countries and industries allow for a "closed shop". That means you must be a member of a union in order to take a job. Normally, that means paying a monthly fee. Other industries are flexible - if you don't pay to become a member you can still do the job. You may even be able to take advantage of collective negotiation. But if you need legal advice, the union may not be able to help you. It's similar to insurance in that respect - you can't take out a policy after your house burns down. Unions are democratically controlled and member run. They make choices based on what their membership votes for. Sometimes, the members may vote to go on strike e.g. "We will withdraw our labour until you fix this problem." Some unions can engage in secondary action - in your example, let's say that the grocery store has been underpaying people. Union members might come and protest outside a store they don't work at in order to show support to those workers, to inform customers about the bad behaviour, and to let management know that their actions won't be tolerated. Unions are necessary because your employer is richer, stronger, and has more lawyers than you do as an individual. In unity there is strength.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  You missed the part that in some countries, even if they don't join, depending on the union structure, they would still get the benefits from the industry agreements made between the union, government and industrial partners.
kadoban 3y ago
> When I asked what their complaint was, I found out they didn't work there and I got confused. Do you ever go help out a friend who needs it? Same thing, but two unions. > And if they vote Yes, do they then choose what kind of union to be (Teamsters, etc.) and doesn't it get kind of complicated? A union is just an organization of people, like a company in many ways. The union forms with some basic governance rules, and the union decides to join up with some bigger organization if they want to. > What happens to the people that vote No? I believe it depends on the state's laws, but broad strokes either basically they're in the union anyway, or they can choose to be or not.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Do you ever go help out a friend who needs it? Same thing, but two unions. I'd hope to understand what help my friend needs in that case. But I guess there is also something admirable about someone who is there to help without question, especially in this day and age.
7e 3y ago
Unions are form of collusion/price fixing where employees attempt to gain a monopoly on labor and raise wages/rents above market rate. However, this form of antitrust is not illegal because corporations, were they people, would be psychopaths that actually behave even more badly. And, all things being equal, groups of people deserve wealth more than corporations do.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Your use of "collusion" reveals more about your personal views than anything else. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion_(disambiguation) : "Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of legal rights." Quoting https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion "A secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy." Unions, in general, do not fit this definition. Perhaps there is a technical use I'm not aware of, but this is not a specialized forum where that would be clear.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Unions are cartels for workers. They are anticompetitive in the same way that cartels are.
    - tbrownaw 3y ago
      In theory this just lets them achieve equal power to employers who they are canonically opposed to, and is therefore a good thing.
      - memefrog 3y ago
        Employers and employees are not opposed to each other, and nothing would ever get done if they were. They have a symbiotic relationship. Employers are, contrary to what you have implied, not permitted to band together to negotiate as a group. That is called wage fixing.
    - 3y ago
HWR_14 3y ago
There are three different things. Creating a new union where there was none before. Having a workplace's workforce represented by that union. An individual joining a union. We can safely ignore the first of the three for your question (no one wants to talk about how the Teamsters union was formed) and the last one (a trucker fills out paperwork). For the second part, some employees work with an existing union to fill out cards indicating they want to join and be represented by that existing union. Once enough workers (by percentage) have filled out such cards, a vote is held among the affected workforce. (For instance, just the janitorial staff may have to fill out cards and vote to unionize the janitorial staff, or an entire Starbucks may unionize). The government sets regulations on the vote and/or oversees it, but both the company and the union get to make their cases in the time before the vote. Then, majority wins. (The company can just agree and start working with the union without the vote) Specific to your question about what a majority means, it certainly isn't by industry. I've heard of individual stores holding votes for Starbucks or Walmart, but also company wide votes for less retail oriented businesses. I'm not sure if that's because each location is a separate llc or because it can be by location. Everyone, regardless of vote, can then join the union or not. Some states prevent unions from negotiating an "only union employees" clause in their contracts, others do not. Note that even if it's "only union employees", that just means all employees must join the union for the term of their employment, not that they have to be a member to get hired at all.

creato 3y ago

> What happens to the people that vote No? I think this is what the difference between “right to work” states and not is. In “right to work” states, unions cannot stop someone from working at an employer. In non-right to work states, unions have more power to determine that, but I don’t understand how exactly. Personally I find it pretty hard to reason through this. On one hand, right to work seems utterly reasonable, how can a third party tell an employer and employee that they can’t conduct business to their mutual satisfaction? But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. So if you feel that employers have too much power over employees and unions are a good answer to that, but also think it’s absurd to allow a third party to block an employment contract, then it seems like there are no options left.

zerocrates 3y ago
Federal law allows for arrangements where employees can be required to join the union after being hired, or can choose to not join but have to pay the union a fee for their representation. "Right-to-work" states change this and don't allow those arrangements: employees are free to not join and not pay. The "closed shop," where only members of the union are hired, is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law.
- wincy 3y ago
  Yeah good luck working a job where everyone else is union and you’re not though, you’ll find your lunch missing and people will be total jerks to you at every possible turn…
- Animats 3y ago
  Right. - Closed shop - must belong to union to be hired. Outlawed in US in 1947. - Union shop - must join union after being hired. Not allowed in right-to-work US states. - Open shop - can optionally join union. - Yellow-dog contract - forbidden to join union. Outlawed in US in 1932. Violated by some US employers. US labor law dates from an era of strong unions, and basically outlines a set of rules under which management and labor can battle it out. Management won. In 1954, about 35% of US private sector workers belonged to a union. Today, that's about 6%. In Canada, 14% of private sector workers belong to a union today. In Germany, about 50%.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> But at the same time, it’s clear that right to work will gut unions. Not inherently. If a union is providing clear value to the employees, they'll presumably want to be a member. If an employee doesn't want to be a member, presumably they don't feel it provides them with commensurate value.

stevenwoo 3y ago

What happened in your first sentence was ruled impermissable in the USA due to Taft-Hartley in 1947 as I understand it, strikers can only picket where the company they are striking against does business. So you really need to be less vague.

mattmcknight 3y ago
Absolutely not true. They used to picket the store where I worked because we weren't union. It was so annoying.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The point of picketing is to be annoying.
- eesmith 3y ago
  It's called "recognitional picketing". Quoting https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/recognitional-picketing-section-8b7 https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/re... > Recognitional picketing (Section 8(b)(7)) > Picketing to force an employer to recognize - or employees to select - a union is permitted under certain circumstances. As with secondary boycotts, the law here is a bit complex. > Section 8(b)(7) of the Act makes it unlawful for a labor organization or its agents "to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees: (A) where the employer has lawfully recognized any other labor organization and a question concerning representation may not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c); (B) where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) has been conducted; or (C) where such picketing has been conducted without a petition under Section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the commencement of such picketing: ...
eesmith 3y ago

edent 3y ago

It depends on the country you're in but, briefly put... A group of workers come together. They form a collective known as a Trade Union. They can say "pay us a better wage or we'll stop working for you". Or "stop managers from sexually harassing us or we won't do any overtime". They use collective bargaining to extract better value or conditions from their employer. Some unions are tiny - they might just cover a single office. Others are huge - they might cover an entire industry. Because labour laws are complex it is sometimes better for people to be in a large union. There are unions which cover single companies and there are unions which cover industries. There are even "miscellaneous" unions. Generally speaking, if a majority of workers vote to join a union then the company has to recognise that union (I'm glossing over the detail of what a majority means because different countries have different rules). Recognising a union means (again, depending on the law) that the company has to consult with the employees before making certain changes. It might also mean that the union gets to represent workers when negotiating pay. In most countries, an individual can choose whether to join a union or not. If they don't join, they don't pay any union fees - but they also don't get the protection of the union's lawyers. Some countries and industries allow for a "closed shop". That means you must be a member of a union in order to take a job. Normally, that means paying a monthly fee. Other industries are flexible - if you don't pay to become a member you can still do the job. You may even be able to take advantage of collective negotiation. But if you need legal advice, the union may not be able to help you. It's similar to insurance in that respect - you can't take out a policy after your house burns down. Unions are democratically controlled and member run. They make choices based on what their membership votes for. Sometimes, the members may vote to go on strike e.g. "We will withdraw our labour until you fix this problem." Some unions can engage in secondary action - in your example, let's say that the grocery store has been underpaying people. Union members might come and protest outside a store they don't work at in order to show support to those workers, to inform customers about the bad behaviour, and to let management know that their actions won't be tolerated. Unions are necessary because your employer is richer, stronger, and has more lawyers than you do as an individual. In unity there is strength.

pjmlp 3y ago
You missed the part that in some countries, even if they don't join, depending on the union structure, they would still get the benefits from the industry agreements made between the union, government and industrial partners.

kadoban 3y ago

> When I asked what their complaint was, I found out they didn't work there and I got confused. Do you ever go help out a friend who needs it? Same thing, but two unions. > And if they vote Yes, do they then choose what kind of union to be (Teamsters, etc.) and doesn't it get kind of complicated? A union is just an organization of people, like a company in many ways. The union forms with some basic governance rules, and the union decides to join up with some bigger organization if they want to. > What happens to the people that vote No? I believe it depends on the state's laws, but broad strokes either basically they're in the union anyway, or they can choose to be or not.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Do you ever go help out a friend who needs it? Same thing, but two unions. I'd hope to understand what help my friend needs in that case. But I guess there is also something admirable about someone who is there to help without question, especially in this day and age.

7e 3y ago

Unions are form of collusion/price fixing where employees attempt to gain a monopoly on labor and raise wages/rents above market rate. However, this form of antitrust is not illegal because corporations, were they people, would be psychopaths that actually behave even more badly. And, all things being equal, groups of people deserve wealth more than corporations do.

eesmith 3y ago
Your use of "collusion" reveals more about your personal views than anything else. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion_(disambiguation) : "Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of legal rights." Quoting https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion "A secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy." Unions, in general, do not fit this definition. Perhaps there is a technical use I'm not aware of, but this is not a specialized forum where that would be clear.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Unions are cartels for workers. They are anticompetitive in the same way that cartels are.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    In theory this just lets them achieve equal power to employers who they are canonically opposed to, and is therefore a good thing.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Employers and employees are not opposed to each other, and nothing would ever get done if they were. They have a symbiotic relationship. Employers are, contrary to what you have implied, not permitted to band together to negotiate as a group. That is called wage fixing.
  - 3y ago

HWR_14 3y ago

There are three different things. Creating a new union where there was none before. Having a workplace's workforce represented by that union. An individual joining a union. We can safely ignore the first of the three for your question (no one wants to talk about how the Teamsters union was formed) and the last one (a trucker fills out paperwork). For the second part, some employees work with an existing union to fill out cards indicating they want to join and be represented by that existing union. Once enough workers (by percentage) have filled out such cards, a vote is held among the affected workforce. (For instance, just the janitorial staff may have to fill out cards and vote to unionize the janitorial staff, or an entire Starbucks may unionize). The government sets regulations on the vote and/or oversees it, but both the company and the union get to make their cases in the time before the vote. Then, majority wins. (The company can just agree and start working with the union without the vote) Specific to your question about what a majority means, it certainly isn't by industry. I've heard of individual stores holding votes for Starbucks or Walmart, but also company wide votes for less retail oriented businesses. I'm not sure if that's because each location is a separate llc or because it can be by location. Everyone, regardless of vote, can then join the union or not. Some states prevent unions from negotiating an "only union employees" clause in their contracts, others do not. Note that even if it's "only union employees", that just means all employees must join the union for the term of their employment, not that they have to be a member to get hired at all.