5 ms·

American has laws which force you to join a Union even if you hate them, want nothing to do with them and don't want them to represent you!? No wonder so many

American has laws which force you to join a Union even if you hate them, want nothing to do with them and don't want them to represent you!? No wonder so many Americans hate Unions.

christophilus 3y ago
It's a per-state thing, but yes; it's one of the reasons for the hatred.
zdragnar 3y ago
Some states are "right to work" states that allow you to not join or pay dues. They tend to be the more conservative / Republican learning states. More liberal states allow unions to form closed-shop contacts, and most government positions are the same. If you want to be a teacher, you must join the union that contacts with the school you want to teach at. If you want to get a summer job as a teenager or college kid at a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota, you must join the union.
- eesmith 3y ago
  I think you have you details wrong? "The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop Perhaps you are thinking of how the teachers' union could collect agency fees from non-union public school teachers? As I understand it, that ended when Janus v. AFSCME was decided in 2018. "The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME That decision only applies to the public sector, not a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota. However, you are still not required to join the union to work in the warehouse, even in Minnesota, only make "fair share" payments: https://www.findlaw.com/state/minnesota-law/minnesota-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/minnesota-law/minnesota-right-... > Minnesota does not have a right to work law, which means employees that are part of a unionized workforce must join the union or make "fair share" payments equivalent to the cost of union dues. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/union-dues https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... > Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_Amer... > Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.[1] The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," ...
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    You're right, I should have said "agency-shop" rather than "closed-shop". The main point I was driving was that you don't get to join a union, then go work someplace and expect that union to be involved on your behalf. You go to work some place, and the one union that represents your class of workers at that shop runs the negotiations. Regardless of whether or not you "join" the union, you're paying them. The only difference is a: In theory, you're not paying for their political activities (ymmv) b: You have zero say (which is about the same as being in a large union)
    - eesmith 3y ago
      As a relative matter, you should expect the union to be more involved on your behalf than the company you joined. You have little say in a large company either, and companies can engage in political activities that you disagree with, funded in part by the profit you help bring to the company. That of course doesn't guarantee the union will always work on your behalf. For a simple and clear example, historically many unions discriminated against their black members. In general though, unions are run more like a democracy than most companies, so you should have more representation as a union member than as an employee. You do understand that many companies place requirements on their employees which effectively takes money and time from them, right? Like, a company can have a dress code which requires people to buy and maintain more expensive clothes they otherwise wouldn't have. And while some positions have a clothing allowance, that's not common for places with a dress code. Or, a company can require you to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day, but not pay you for the time you spend waiting (see Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk). Why then should a job requirement to join a union be any different than other sorts of job requirements that force you to spend your own time and money for something that doesn't benefit you? You look at total compensation, and not each line item benefit and cost, right?
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        If you have a problem with the company, it's you versus the company. Maybe it can be resolved amicably, maybe you move on. If you have a problem with the union, it's you versus your peers, and you're basically SOL- you gave them all the power they need when you joined. See what bigger unions will do- including file lawsuits in courts- when members are fed up and vote to decertify the local chapter.

American has laws which force you to join a Union even if you hate them, want nothing to do with them and don't want them to represent you!? No wonder so many Americans hate Unions.

christophilus 3y ago

It's a per-state thing, but yes; it's one of the reasons for the hatred.

zdragnar 3y ago

Some states are "right to work" states that allow you to not join or pay dues. They tend to be the more conservative / Republican learning states. More liberal states allow unions to form closed-shop contacts, and most government positions are the same. If you want to be a teacher, you must join the union that contacts with the school you want to teach at. If you want to get a summer job as a teenager or college kid at a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota, you must join the union.

eesmith 3y ago
I think you have you details wrong? "The Taft–Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop Perhaps you are thinking of how the teachers' union could collect agency fees from non-union public school teachers? As I understand it, that ended when Janus v. AFSCME was decided in 2018. "The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME That decision only applies to the public sector, not a Pepsi warehouse in Minnesota. However, you are still not required to join the union to work in the warehouse, even in Minnesota, only make "fair share" payments: https://www.findlaw.com/state/minnesota-law/minnesota-right-to-work-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/minnesota-law/minnesota-right-... > Minnesota does not have a right to work law, which means employees that are part of a unionized workforce must join the union or make "fair share" payments equivalent to the cost of union dues. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/union-dues https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... > Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_Amer... > Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative.[1] The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," ...
- zdragnar 3y ago
  You're right, I should have said "agency-shop" rather than "closed-shop". The main point I was driving was that you don't get to join a union, then go work someplace and expect that union to be involved on your behalf. You go to work some place, and the one union that represents your class of workers at that shop runs the negotiations. Regardless of whether or not you "join" the union, you're paying them. The only difference is a: In theory, you're not paying for their political activities (ymmv) b: You have zero say (which is about the same as being in a large union)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    As a relative matter, you should expect the union to be more involved on your behalf than the company you joined. You have little say in a large company either, and companies can engage in political activities that you disagree with, funded in part by the profit you help bring to the company. That of course doesn't guarantee the union will always work on your behalf. For a simple and clear example, historically many unions discriminated against their black members. In general though, unions are run more like a democracy than most companies, so you should have more representation as a union member than as an employee. You do understand that many companies place requirements on their employees which effectively takes money and time from them, right? Like, a company can have a dress code which requires people to buy and maintain more expensive clothes they otherwise wouldn't have. And while some positions have a clothing allowance, that's not common for places with a dress code. Or, a company can require you to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day, but not pay you for the time you spend waiting (see Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk). Why then should a job requirement to join a union be any different than other sorts of job requirements that force you to spend your own time and money for something that doesn't benefit you? You look at total compensation, and not each line item benefit and cost, right?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      If you have a problem with the company, it's you versus the company. Maybe it can be resolved amicably, maybe you move on. If you have a problem with the union, it's you versus your peers, and you're basically SOL- you gave them all the power they need when you joined. See what bigger unions will do- including file lawsuits in courts- when members are fed up and vote to decertify the local chapter.