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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Marital status is a protected class in a lot of states–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.
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.
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.
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.