Unions are hard because employers can basically do whatever the fuck they want to fight the union and they usually only get the NLRB injunction/penalty months/years later, after everyone originally supporting the action has been removed by the company.
Some unions are also just in the pocket of management. I have friends who are teamster organizers and they've told me some managers in some industries will actually request unions.
To expand a bit, a union is supposed to be democratic - the workers themselves organize to promote their own interests. But many unions that remain these days have become professionalized. They have their own well-paid administration and lobbyists, and their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers.
> their levers of power are political contributions and signing restrictive long-term contracts with employers.
I'm curious how you think this differs from traditional practices, generally i think of signing security clauses + political influence as basic union 101.
There've always been professional organizers as long as there've been unions. They're hardly "well-paid" by private standards.
Both styles of union have a long history, but the alternative practice is to rely more heavily on strikes and other workplace actions, and less on pay-to-play politics.
It may be "union 101" to sign no-strike clauses but there are unions like the IWW that have always rejected them.
What you need is a union law similar to germany. In germany, when you apply to a job where a union has created a union employee contract (ie, standardized pay, standardized hours & benefits), then you can choose to use that contract even if you are not part of the union and you are entitled to still do your own contract even if you are in the union.
The only time you have to accept certain parts in your contract no choice is if they are mandated by the worker's council, which is voted for democratically by workers from and for a specific company and they can veto anything the company does or demand changes with a 50% share in board votes.
I didn't realize you were referring to no-strike contracts, that's not what a security clause is. That is definitely not a good practice always and not union 101.
> Some unions are also just in the pocket of management.
I honestly believe you on this point, but that is just so crazy that I'd be curious as to the turn of events that would turn out to the union selling out its soul so completely. Unless, of course, that was their intended goal. It just seems so antithetical to the theoretical principles of a union.
I think it's not the union that has sold its soul so much as targeting specific individuals who are important in governing a certain local or something, and getting them to sell out.
> General Motors has accused Fiat Chrysler of bribing union officials to get a leg up on G.M. in contract negotiations, contending in a lawsuit that its competitor paid for the union’s negotiating team to have a $7,000 dinner shortly after concluding a labor agreement. Fiat Chrysler has called the suit meritless.
I think many are interpreting my comment as anti-union, which it was not meant to be. Unions can be coopted by management, but better to have some sort of worker council/representation than none at all.
I’m more ashamed of the legislature that allows this to happen. There’s no reason an employer should not have the pay the minute they expect something of the employee, assuming it’s a position paid per unit of time.
The problem is that you get into things that aren’t part of your duties that are still expected of you. Such as commuting to and from work; It’s necessary to commute, but it’s not part of your duties.
It’s unsettled (in America) what’s the right answer to that, but an argument against it I’ve heard is: if you get a job and the employer agrees to pay for a 10 minute commute twice per shift, but you then move 30 minutes away, why should the employer be on the hook for that extra 20 minutes (40 per shift)?
The moment you're at your job is when your clock should start, unless your employer has demanded you do a 2+ hour commute or something. Ie, the moment they control what you do and can order you to do things like putting on a uniform.
And the moment they can no longer do that is when the clock stops, ie once you've finished getting out of uniform and left.
Commute has pretty much not been on the negotiating table as far as I understand for most positions. The only time I've seen commute being paid is for workers who need to travel to the job site.
Even then it's generally that you travel unpaid to the office, then you are paid for the travel time from there to the job site.
Commuting isn’t expected of you. Being at a certain place at a certain time is. Once you’re there at that time, the clock starts, but I’ve never heard anyone argue that an employer is responsible for your commute.
My point was: if we take the “expected of you” further, someone will argue that we should pay for your commute.
And yes, commuting isn’t expected, but unless you’re living at your job, you have to commute. So, saying “a commute isn’t expected, but being on time is” doesn’t make sense.
Not to mention, there are times where an employer is required to pay for your commute. The biggest is travel that is required to do your job, such as a door-to-door salesperson. That could lead to: if a commute is practically required to do your job (your house to your place of work), why not pay for that?
I personally don’t have an opinion on this; I’m just playing devil’s advocate.
From what I’ve seen with friends in the amusement industry, the unions don’t really work for them and in some cases are run by the company itself (not directly but with directors that have obvious conflicts).
