4 ms·

How were you forced into the union? Was it manipulation or did you literally have to join or face consequences?

readthenotes1 3y ago
In some States, if it's a union shop you have to be in the union. In others, you don't. (https://www.nber.org/digest/202208/impacts-right-work-laws-unionization-and-wages https://www.nber.org/digest/202208/impacts-right-work-laws-u...) New York is highly unionized. I used to know a woman who set up trade shows there and would laugh that they required two different unions to move a desk with a computer on it that she herself could have moved if it were allowed.
- gosub100 3y ago
  [flagged]
- prmoustache 3y ago
  That is not what I read from your link. Your link state that in some states every worker benefits from collective agreements (which are set by bargaining with the unions) regardless the workers are part of the union or not. Despite being mostly pro union I would find it totally baffling that a worker would be forced into a union and I doubt the OP was.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Read the definition of right to work: "the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law In EU this is already a thing, we see this is as a natural right to workers. In USA this is a hot topic, liberal states have unions forcing you to pay for membership even if you aren't a member.
    - cristiancavalli 3y ago
      I still don’t see any data for the case you state being proffered — just the ability (from your link) for union shops to charge dues to non union members who are getting the benefits of union negotiated pay & benefits. Barring any actual proof of this “forcing” happening in inclined to believe this is just exaggeration.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > Barring any actual proof of this “forcing” happening They force non-union members to get the same benefits and pay the same union dues. What is hard to understand here? This is what unions in USA fight so hard to keep, they wouldn't fight for it if they didn't use it to force people. For example, if you want to be an actor in California, you need to join SAG if you want to be in a union production. But if you join SAG you are no longer allowed to work in non-union productions, essentially creating two separate markets. Do you think this isn't happening? Many big actors hate this, but they are forced to join SAG anyway. Here is how it works if you don't want to look it up yourself: > Once this grace period expires, however, you become classified as a “must-join”. As the label implies, you now must join the union and pay the initiation fee if you wish to continue to work any SAG-AFTRA jobs going forward. https://actingmagazine.com/2021/01/what-is-a-must-join/ https://actingmagazine.com/2021/01/what-is-a-must-join/ Edit: And here is how right to work gives you a choice instead of the union being able to force you: > There is usually more flexibility for must-join actors who reside in right-to-work states, since right-to-work states have laws that prohibit unions from requiring workers to join a union as a condition for employment. However, the largest acting markets in the United States, like Los Angeles and New York, are union states.
        cristiancavalli 3y ago
        Conceded that sag has a pretty special case here in the “must join” of course, speaking from the free market view, you are more than welcome to work on non-union gigs of which there are plenty. No one is making you join a union just because you are in a profession + a place. There’s plenty of non-union gigs in Hollywood. I don’t see the harm in making people pay dues if they are getting the benefits of a union gig and this is not the same as “being forced” to join a union — you can go work in another state with right to work laws. This also seems like a pretty special case to SAG since we can see union and non union workers in auto plants: evidenced by the tier system that many auto manufacturers put in place. So not all unions have this same bargaining power.

In some States, if it's a union shop you have to be in the union. In others, you don't. (https://www.nber.org/digest/202208/impacts-right-work-laws-unionization-and-wages https://www.nber.org/digest/202208/impacts-right-work-laws-u...) New York is highly unionized. I used to know a woman who set up trade shows there and would laugh that they required two different unions to move a desk with a computer on it that she herself could have moved if it were allowed.

gosub100 3y ago
[flagged]
prmoustache 3y ago
That is not what I read from your link. Your link state that in some states every worker benefits from collective agreements (which are set by bargaining with the unions) regardless the workers are part of the union or not. Despite being mostly pro union I would find it totally baffling that a worker would be forced into a union and I doubt the OP was.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Read the definition of right to work: "the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law In EU this is already a thing, we see this is as a natural right to workers. In USA this is a hot topic, liberal states have unions forcing you to pay for membership even if you aren't a member.
  - cristiancavalli 3y ago
    I still don’t see any data for the case you state being proffered — just the ability (from your link) for union shops to charge dues to non union members who are getting the benefits of union negotiated pay & benefits. Barring any actual proof of this “forcing” happening in inclined to believe this is just exaggeration.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > Barring any actual proof of this “forcing” happening They force non-union members to get the same benefits and pay the same union dues. What is hard to understand here? This is what unions in USA fight so hard to keep, they wouldn't fight for it if they didn't use it to force people. For example, if you want to be an actor in California, you need to join SAG if you want to be in a union production. But if you join SAG you are no longer allowed to work in non-union productions, essentially creating two separate markets. Do you think this isn't happening? Many big actors hate this, but they are forced to join SAG anyway. Here is how it works if you don't want to look it up yourself: > Once this grace period expires, however, you become classified as a “must-join”. As the label implies, you now must join the union and pay the initiation fee if you wish to continue to work any SAG-AFTRA jobs going forward. https://actingmagazine.com/2021/01/what-is-a-must-join/ https://actingmagazine.com/2021/01/what-is-a-must-join/ Edit: And here is how right to work gives you a choice instead of the union being able to force you: > There is usually more flexibility for must-join actors who reside in right-to-work states, since right-to-work states have laws that prohibit unions from requiring workers to join a union as a condition for employment. However, the largest acting markets in the United States, like Los Angeles and New York, are union states.
      - cristiancavalli 3y ago
        Conceded that sag has a pretty special case here in the “must join” of course, speaking from the free market view, you are more than welcome to work on non-union gigs of which there are plenty. No one is making you join a union just because you are in a profession + a place. There’s plenty of non-union gigs in Hollywood. I don’t see the harm in making people pay dues if they are getting the benefits of a union gig and this is not the same as “being forced” to join a union — you can go work in another state with right to work laws. This also seems like a pretty special case to SAG since we can see union and non union workers in auto plants: evidenced by the tier system that many auto manufacturers put in place. So not all unions have this same bargaining power.