… are there two dif classes of employees for purposes of wages and benefits even if they do the same job.
I often see the argument that a non-union worker would still get all of the benefits that the union negotiated and I doubt that is true.
Obviously they could piggy-back onto certain working condition benefits but beyond that I’m not so sure.
I was under the impression that unions could, in many areas, collect a so-called “agency fee” from non-union workers. This was supposed to cover the cost of collective bargaining only - it did not provide membership in the union or the right to take part in union affairs. The fee was specifically supposed to exclude requiring the worker to provide money toward the union’s external activities, such as political lobbying or giving financial support to candidates that the worker disapproves of.
I work for the federal government, but I’m not a member of the AFGE. There is a set of pay schedules in which the salaries and wages vary depending on location and occupation - but there is no distinction anywhere between union and non-union federal employees.
Similarly to Machine Elf’s example, I’m NOT a member of the Air Force Sergeant’s Association, which is not a union but effectively acts like one. Membership is voluntary (but highly encouraged, wink wink). AFSA lobbies congress for pay and benefit increases for AF enlisted folks. Since I’m not a member, I contribute nothing to their efforts, but I reap the benefits anyway.
The US automakers (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler) don’t care whether a state has right-to-work or union-friendly laws. There might be differences based on differing costs of living, but union workers don’t get paid more than non-union workers.
From the employers’ perspective, there’s no incentive to discriminate against non-unionized workers. If they did, those workers would join the union, and the union would have more clout. Also, IANAL, but any employer that routinely discriminated against non-union employees to the benefit of union employees could be opening themselves up to a class-action lawsuit.
Non-union workers get the benefit of the unions by not getting paid non-living wages and not working in sweat shop conditions, and getting any benefits at all.
No, the union is the sole representative for all employees in the bargaining unit (which pertains to job families and not simply union membership) and it must bargain collectively on behalf of all members of the bargaining unit. (NLRA §9.)
“Sole bargaining representative” means that no single employee or group of employees other than the union may endeavor to bargain either for himself/itself supplementarily or alternatively to the union. The union displaces all other potential bargainers for all members of the bargaining unit.
Thus, in brief, under NLRA §9, all benefits secured by collective bargaining by a union must be available to all bargaining unit employees without distinction to their union membership.
Briefer still, the OP’s suspicion is utterly and legally incorrect.
There are two types of contract a union could negotiate a monopoly contract or a members only contract. The monopoly contract applies to all workers at a workplace regardless of union status and a members only contract applies only to members of the union. The union gets to choose which type of contract they negotiate and almost always choose monopoly contract. Theoretically a union could also negotiate a members only contract with an employer voluntarily, that is without winning an election, but that never happens.
In the CWA-shop that I worked in, there was a window every year where you could submit an “agency fee objector” form to the union head office. They would turn around and cut a “refund” check for some percentage of the dues. Non-union folks in my job title would usually get around $130.
This is correct, and indeed the Supreme Court, only shortly after the passage of the original Wagner Act, recognized that an unelected association of employees could endeavor to bargain collectively for its members only. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938).)
However, such negotiations between the employee association and the employer would be strictly on a voluntary basis. Compulsory collective bargaining is afforded only to elected unions, and elected unions must bargain on behalf of all bargaining unit employees.
Lastly, a line of NLRB cases (beginning with Max Factor & Co., 118 NLRB 808 (1957)) holds that the non-elected association and employer may not agree to treat the unelected as if it were the elected, exclusive bargaining representative for the unit. In particular,the Max Factor case held that non-elected associations could not negotiate union security clauses. Thus three of “badges and incidents” of unionhood (so to speak)—exclusive authority to bargain, compulsory collective bargaining, and the ability to negotiate union security agreements—are withheld from non-elected associations.
The lack of these powers is significant enough that I would argue the statement “non-elected unions may negotiate members-only contracts” is inaccurate. These non-elected associations may do so, but these associations bear only a passing resemblance to unions for the reasons discussed above.
As a federal employee you are subject to federal employment laws. Generally speaking, a state’s right to work laws don’t apply to you, especially if they conflict with federal law.
This is the thread winner. The bosses in a right to work state could say, “I only negotiated with the union, so the non-union guys don’t get the pay raise/benefit hike.” That’s a great way to make your whole shop union. Give the raise/benefit hike to all employees and make the union carry the load.
Except the union does charge dues. Doesn’t that provide some window of opportunity for the employer to pay the non-union employees less? Further, mightn’t there be some employees who would prefer to negotiate their own contract, in the hopes that they can get something better than what the union is offering?
My family owned a company with 1100 employees and 10 plant locations. Two of the plants were unionized. The employees of those plants got smaller compensation (wages and benefits) than the non unionized plants. Go figure. This was in spite of management providing accountants to assist the union in evaluating contract offers. At the other 8 plants, there was extra money available for wages and benefits, since work went smoother, management time was not needed for contract battles every few years, and turnover was smaller by a factor of five. The employees in the non-unionized plants seemed to LIKE working for the company, and stayed for their entire careers, while the employees in the union plants kept quitting after a few years. Again - go figure.
It is against the law to discriminate based on membership or non membership in a union. If an employer were to pay the non union members less then they could sue and probably win a discrimination lawsuit.
One of the things that piss business agents off having to repersent a non member at any kind of hearing. According to some talks with our business the non member has the right to demand that the union defend them the same as a member.
The claim that some people make about being non union means they can negotiate a better pay rate than the union contract does not hold water. That has nothing to do with union membership. I have known quite a few people that were being paid above scale. Some negotiated a pay for x dollars per hour when the rate was y. The smarter ones negotiated a percentage over scale for the class they are in, something like 10 or 20% over Chief Engineers pay rate. In the first case every year a new pay rate would have to be agreed on, in the second case the pay rate would raise every year. I know one guy who took a job that should have been paid at the journyman rate, he negotiated the job at Traveling Chief’s rate the is 30% over journeyman rate.
Benifits can be the same or not depends. If health care is a company plan the it had better be the same. But there is a union health care plan the contract can call for only the union members to recieve the union health care and the non union member to recieve the ccompany health care plan. Same with retirement.
Good thing labor law is not on the bar exam, eh?
As I’ve explained above, a union elected as a bargaining unit’s representative absolutely cannot negotiate a two-tier CBA or bargain only for members as you suggest. And employers cannot refuse to bargain with elected unions.
I think it was IBM that avoided unions by the simple expedient of (a) paying as much as a union shop and (b) listening to workers.
One company I heard of, allegedly ended up with a union for the office workers thanks to the efforts of one office manager. The one thing the secretaries and other non-technical staff could do was transfer to different departments and positions from time to time; this guy ignored competence and seniority and instead used favoritism. Now he deals with a union.
My general belief is, that in general a company gets the union it deserves. SOme might be the product of argumentative ambitious union wannabees, but in general it’s management’s attitude which determines union attitude. Whatever your family was like, if their plant boss or middle management were dicks, well, the place will be hell to work in. IIRC it was Brinks or someone in Montreal that pulled the trick - “Fine, you want to be in a union, we’ll take out the airconditioning and the radios in the trucks you sit in all day.” There’s a very adult attitude guaranteed to bring you labour peace and a cooperative environement.
Why don’t the unions seek to change that then… methinks they like the power and the argument that they serve those who don’t want to join.
BTW… I’ll send you some $$ as soon as you send me your address or PayPal info.
And how are to change it. Over rule the courts on discrimination?