# Labor 101, or why strikes are okay **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2023, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700 "2023-09-06T18:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/121 "2023-09-07T18:03:22Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Why is that particular imposition, out of the many impositions involved as conditions of employment, unreasonable? It wasn’t plucked out of the air as the most unreasonable imposition, it merely happens to be the one under discussion in this thread. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If I want a job with a particular employer, they can tell me: > -I can’t slag off the company in public. > -I can’t drink a rival brand of soda in public. > -I must purchase certain clothes to wear to my job. > -I must relocate to a certain area. > -I must obtain certain training or education prior to the job. Apart from the rival brand of soda nonsense I’d say that all of those requirements are reasonable contractual expectations that need to be fulfilled in order to carry out a job. “being in a union” carries no such weight. If you can think of a specific circumstance where it might then I could be persuaded to consider an exception, but an rare exception it is likely to remain. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/122 "2023-09-07T18:06:58Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Apart from the rival brand of soda nonsense I’d say that all of those requirements are reasonable contractual expectations that need to be fulfilled in order to carry out a job. They’re not reviewable. If my job is to work the night shift in a control room watching surveillance screens, my boss can still require me to wear polished loafers. My boss can require me to obtain training that’s complete woo (I actually had this at a job once, a required enneagram workshop). There’s nothing about “reasonable” in the setup. Are you proposing that only “reasonable contractual expectations” should be enforceable? If so, what mechanism to do you propose to determine which are reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/123 "2023-09-07T18:13:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > What about in public-sector unions where you get to enjoy the benefit of the union negotiating better pay and working conditions for you. There are public-sector pay bodies which arbitrate on such matters. When deals are struck the pay and conditions are the same ones that are offered to everyone, union and non-union alike. I don’t see the need for a non-union person to pay union fees under those circumstances but it seems one of the least obnoxious solutions. There have certainly been similar deductions taken from wages for services that the employee didn’t request. Though I’m not sure such activity is legally enforceable in the UK at least. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/124 "2023-09-07T18:17:16Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t see the need for a non-union person to pay union fees under those circumstances but it seems one of the least obnoxious solutions. If you’re cool with agency fees, we’re not actually all that far apart. Agency fees go a very long way–perhaps all the way–toward removing the selfish incentive to decline union membership, and thereby weaken labor’s power. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/125 "2023-09-07T18:18:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Your objection really seems to be workers _organizing_ to set a minimum wage. If Joe won’t work for less than $20 an hour, and Freya won’t work for less than $20 an hour, that’s fine; but if Joe and Freya agree that neither of them will work for less than $20 an hour, suddenly it’s a problem. This really seems to be the crux of it. I hope @Wrenching_Spanners replies. ISTM it comes down to this (essentially restating the above point): Should it be legal for multiple workers to come together and decide to try and negotiate, as a group, with their employer to improve conditions? Should it be legal for them to come to an agreement with their employer that improves pay and working conditions? Should it be legal for them to come to an agreement with their employer that requires that new workers also be included in these improved conditions, and subject to the rules of the organization the workers have formed? If you (the general you who are skeptical of unions) don’t think the latter should be legal, why should this sort of negotiated agreement be illegal? Or do you just think it’s generally a bad thing when workers do this? While unions could make bad decisions and bad agreements with their employers, ISTM that allowing this process is a very good thing because, otherwise, workers are restricted in their ability to work together to negotiate with their employers while employers are not. ISTM that allowing workers to organize and negotiate in this way reflects greater freedom in society than restricting workers’ ability to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/126 "2023-09-07T18:20:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Are you proposing that only “reasonable contractual expectations” should be enforceable? yes, exactly. > If so, what mechanism to do you propose to determine which are reasonable? The same mechanism as it has always been. The courts of law, employment tribunals and the legal precedents hashed out over the years. Unreasonable demands would be thrown out and we proceed from there. The principle of “reasonableness” holds a lot of sway in my own legal system and it seems to work quite well. Would it be “reasonable” to write into a contract that you marry within 18 months or lose your job? No, and no such contract would pass that reasonableness test. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/127 "2023-09-07T18:24:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If you’re cool with agency fees, we’re not actually all that far apart. Agency fees go a very long way–perhaps all the way–toward removing the selfish incentive to decline union membership, and thereby weaken labor’s power. The best way of removing any incentive to _not_ join a union is for the union to be the better option. I think it is that simple. What benefits do they offer members? how good are they at working with management? choosing their battles? conducting their action? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/128 "2023-09-07T18:31:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Many businesses forbid their employees from forming unions. Do you feel that should be allowed? Or do you feel that your proposed individual right to not join a union should be balanced with an individual right to join a union? Absolutely, I said this earlier in the thread > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I also think that employers should be compelled to allow workers to unionise and should not be able to refuse the hiring of union members No one should be stopped from joining a union, no-one should be forced to join a union and neither option should be able to be written into an employment contract. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/129 "2023-09-07T18:35:25Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > There are public-sector pay bodies which arbitrate on such matters. When deals are struck the pay and conditions are the same ones that are offered to everyone, union and non-union alike. Yeah, it doesn’t generally work that way in the United States. My workplace has four different union locals in two different overarching unions, all of whom work under different contracts but to date of identical length. Contracts are negotiated separately, but simultaneously. Sometimes the unions negotiate cooperatively, other times they don’t. “Most favored nations” clauses in contracts in terms of wages (but not other work rules) are usually agreed on, but are not mandatory or a matter of law, more just negotiating strategy. We’re a public agency but there are no public sector pay bodies of any sort that regulate wage levels for us (beyond state or federally mandated minimum wage). Worth pointing out that even in government I believe that American employers generally have a stronger whiphand than in most other Western democracies. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/130 "2023-09-07T18:41:51Z")
Maybe - sometimes the things that you mention aren’t really provided by the union. For example, at one of my jobs I got my dental and prescription coverage and a legal services plan through my union - but the union didn’t pay for them. My employer did and the union administered them. The various membership discounts didn’t cost the union anything - Verizon didn’t charge the union anything to give me my discount. There probably wasn’t any significant difference in money between the unions due and the agency shop fee as the non-work related political \* stuff went through a separate organization . The agency fee payers got the same disciplinary representation as members right up to the lawyers. Mostly, what the fee payers didn’t get was a say in anything - they couldn’t run for office, they couldn’t vote for officers, they didn’t get to vote on contract ratification. And they couldn’t get discounted movie tickets and such that was run through the union ( the union bought the tickets and then sold them to members) \* I worked in the public sector and certain issues like pensions were not subject to negotiation and lobbying the legislators was necessary to get changes to those issues. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > There are public-sector pay bodies which arbitrate on such matters. When deals are struck the pay and conditions are the same ones that are offered to everyone, union and non-union alike. Who is striking the deal ? “Striking a deal” implies that there are two parties at the table. In the US one would be the employer ( perhaps a state or local government or a public authority) and the other is the union. And the negotiators cost the union something - they are either staff and receiving pay and benefits, or perhaps they are members and just receiving stipends and expenses. There might be arbitration - but probably not. If there is arbitration, it’s often only once there is an impasse - and where I live , both sides try to avoid it precisely because there is no negotiation at that point and no one ends up happy. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/131 "2023-09-07T18:43:09Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The best way of removing any incentive to _not_ join a union is for the union to be the better option. This has to take into account that the employer will actively work to make the non-union option more attractive for the express purpose of weakening the union. You can have a job that earned $15/hr and the union gets it bumped up to $20. The next year, the “non-union” version of that job isn’t getting the old $15, they’re getting the new $20 rate (now without dues!) The company isn’t stupid, they’re not going to push people into the union by offering $15. The next time the contract comes up the union only has 50% of the workforce and can’t effectively press the employer into $25, so everybody gets $21, or maybe the union folds and there’s an RIF that nobody could have seen coming. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/132 "2023-09-07T19:13:14Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > That’s the whole argument. If their replacement value was very high, then yes, they would deserve their current wages. However, if their wages are being protected by union membership, and could be replaced easily by other workers, do they deserve to keep their jobs? “Deserve” feels like some sort of moral judgement is in play. I agree that if workers could not act collectively and were put in a position where they underbid each other, this would have the effect of driving wages down and thus transferring a bigger share of revenue to employers. But I don’t see why that arrangement is of such obvious merit that we should bar people from agreeing to act collectively. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/133 "2023-09-07T19:15:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And it worked out great until SCOTUS issued the _Janus_ decision telling people that they can get the benefits of the union for free while telling the union to go fuck themselves and how they are the worst things ever created. Two ships that pass in the night. Supreme Court of Canada has held the the _Charter_’s guarantee of freedom of association means that the right to organise, to bargain collectively, and to strike are all constitutionally protected, in public and private sectors. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/134 "2023-09-07T19:18:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Ideally, the union would create a clear per-worker budget that separates out all these costs, and it would be audited independently, and those who don’t wish to join a union would only pay for the audited services that everyone receives. > > Do I have it right? I believe so, but I’ve never had any “nuts and bolts” experience with an agency shop. It’s also called the “Rand formula” in Canada, after Supreme Court Justice Rand who imposed it in an arbitration to settle a bitter strike in the automotive sector back in the 1950s. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/135 "2023-09-07T19:19:08Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Would it be “reasonable” to write into a contract that you marry within 18 months or lose your job? No, and no such contract would pass that reasonableness test. Marital status is [a protected class in a lot of states](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/is-marital-status-a-protected-class/#:~:text=Marital%20status%20is%20generally%20not,based%20on%20your%20marital%20status.)–and should be, I believe, in others. I’m generally good with the protected class structure. What you’re proposing–that I could sue my employer for requiring me to wear shoes that don’t affect my job performance, for example, and have a decent chance of success–strikes me as a massive expansion of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/136 "2023-09-07T19:23:05Z")
And let’s be real. _Janus_ had nothing to do with freedom of association. If so, they would say that if you don’t want to be in the union fine BUT you get none of the benefits of collective bargaining. Instead they still require unions to negotiate for you but you don’t have to pay for that. It is a way to break teacher unions because as far as I know, the teachers’ unions are the only ones where _Janus_ has been weaponized. No one is going after police unions. postal worker unions, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/137 "2023-09-07T19:28:22Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Worth pointing out that even in government I believe that American employers generally have a stronger whiphand than in most other Western democracies. Certainly more so than in Canada, as my earlier post mentions. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/138 "2023-09-07T19:30:01Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The same mechanism as it has always been. The courts of law, employment tribunals and the legal precedents hashed out over the years. Unreasonable demands would be thrown out and we proceed from there. And if the parties negotiate a union shop clause, and the courts rule that it’s reasonable, you’d be okay with that? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/139 "2023-09-07T19:36:04Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Marital status is [a protected class in a lot of states](https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/is-marital-status-a-protected-class/#:~:text=Marital%20status%20is%20generally%20not,based%20on%20your%20marital%20status.)–and should be, I believe, in others. And let’s extend this to family status. No contract can reward or penalize you for children or lack thereof. Mrs Cad was on an interview committee and her boss, in order to make small talk, asked if the candidate had any kids. That opens the company up to a lawsuit if the person is not hired. Note: that is a presumption that is often used against hiring women because the old white manager assumes she will be responsible for taking care of the kids when her and her husband have them. Probably (in his old white mind) barefoot in the kitchen cooking with the baby on her hip. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2023, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700/140 "2023-09-07T19:57:04Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And if the parties negotiate a union shop clause, and the courts rule that it’s reasonable, you’d be okay with that? The precedent has already been set for that but if by some miracle that option were re-introduced I’d agree it was legal but would still be opposed to it. I don’t find the case for compulsory union-membership compelling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/labor-101-or-why-strikes-are-okay/989700.md?page=8)