6 ms·

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

by 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.
- Scarblac 3y ago
  Yes, in many countries in Europe, the industry wide unions negotiate with representatives of the industry employers, and government can declare the deal binding for all companies of a certain size in the industry. Also if workers go on strike they don't get paid by their job, the union can pay them something instead from fees they received in the past.
- sakjur 3y ago
  This is a key component of the Nordic model. The legislatures in the Nordics choose to not legislate a minimum salary and make a number of labor laws conditional to collective agreements. The theory is that the threat of legislation is sufficient to prevent imbalance between the parties. The state takes on the role as antagonist, making the unions and employers (somewhat uneasy) partners in trying to self-regulate. If they fail, parliament legislates, which is generally speaking perceived as an undesired outcome by everyone (crucially including most political parties). From my Swedish point of view the model seems to work for private local employers, but struggles with the globalized tech workforce and for some public sector employees. It also seems to complicate work visa compliance by hiding away some of the terms.
ssklash 3y ago
> Unions are necessary because your employer is richer, stronger, and has more lawyers than you do as an individual. In unity there is strength. To me this is the key point, that often gets lost or forgotten. Companies inherently benefit from a power imbalance, proportional to the size of the company, and you represent a cost center to them most of the time. This places you at a huge, and permanent, disadvantage, and one of the only ways to combat it is unify with other workers and bargain. The only person or group who exists to maximize your well-being is you/your union, not your employer, so it makes sense not to trust the employer to look out for you. They're busy maximizing returns for shareholders.

by edent 3y ago

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.

Scarblac 3y ago
Yes, in many countries in Europe, the industry wide unions negotiate with representatives of the industry employers, and government can declare the deal binding for all companies of a certain size in the industry. Also if workers go on strike they don't get paid by their job, the union can pay them something instead from fees they received in the past.
sakjur 3y ago
This is a key component of the Nordic model. The legislatures in the Nordics choose to not legislate a minimum salary and make a number of labor laws conditional to collective agreements. The theory is that the threat of legislation is sufficient to prevent imbalance between the parties. The state takes on the role as antagonist, making the unions and employers (somewhat uneasy) partners in trying to self-regulate. If they fail, parliament legislates, which is generally speaking perceived as an undesired outcome by everyone (crucially including most political parties). From my Swedish point of view the model seems to work for private local employers, but struggles with the globalized tech workforce and for some public sector employees. It also seems to complicate work visa compliance by hiding away some of the terms.

ssklash 3y ago

> Unions are necessary because your employer is richer, stronger, and has more lawyers than you do as an individual. In unity there is strength. To me this is the key point, that often gets lost or forgotten. Companies inherently benefit from a power imbalance, proportional to the size of the company, and you represent a cost center to them most of the time. This places you at a huge, and permanent, disadvantage, and one of the only ways to combat it is unify with other workers and bargain. The only person or group who exists to maximize your well-being is you/your union, not your employer, so it makes sense not to trust the employer to look out for you. They're busy maximizing returns for shareholders.