Sorry, can’t fix the quotes
[quoo=Buck Godot]I think the solution to this might be for the union to play hardball and have their negotiations with a company include a clause that says non-union members should be paid $x less than their union counterparts. Where x is a quantity that works out over the year to slightly more than the union membership fee, but that no member should be fired for joining the union.
[/quote]
Is this what unions are talking about when they say that they “are required by law to represent everyone in the unit, whether they are a member of the unit or not, in collective bargaining”?
Regards,
Shodan
Great – that answers a lot. Thanks!
I’m not a lawyer or anything, but this seems to state that unions don’t HAVE to do that, just that they CAN.
Is this what unions are talking about when they say that they “are required by law to represent everyone in the unit, whether they are a member of the unit or not, in collective bargaining”?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
IANAL, but I doubt a union could claim to be “representing” all employees in collective bargaining if said bargain resulted in a lower pay scale for non-members.
While I love the OP’s idea in principle – No dues? Negotiate your own pay! – I’m not sure there’s any way to make it happen in reality.
If a majority of the unit form a union then that union has the exclusive right to collectively bargain BUT it also means they collectively bargain for everyone in the unit. So you can have a situation where 50.1% of the unit are members and the other 49.9% don’t join* yet get the benefits. You might be hearing about my union in the news soon as we have less than 52% of our teachers as members and the Superintendent can’t wait until we drop below 50% so we lose our exclusive CB rights.
As for political speech, every teachers’ union I’ve been a part of has a separate budget for political work meaning they know the numbers that are just union work and the union qua a political advocate so one could easily say only charge me (let’s say) 75% of the dues since 25% of the budget is political speech. To me agency fees are more than fair and if you choose to opt out then you forego any benefits. As for hiring practices, if you are fired for joining the union, that is a completely different issue relating to due process and right-to-work really meaning right-to-fire-for-any-reason**
*And then complain about the union not doing enough yet STILL refuse to join.
** Assuming your HR rep or manager is not so stupid they give a reason as you are a member of a protected class.
I actually think it would be quite easy.
One contract, same for everyone union or not. Take it or leave it.
Two contracts, the one CB has produced for union members and a second for non-union members with less pay, protections, etc.
The power of a union comes from its numbers. Having a non-exclusive union defeats the purpose of unionizing. But take my union for example. Our superintendent looks at the 48% freeloaders and uses that against us saying “Half of your teachers don’t support the union.” And why don’t they? They claim it is too expensive and unsaid is “why should I pay when I get the contract negotiation for free.” Just think if everyone joined the union the dues would be cut in half. AND if we could charge agency fees they would be lowered by about 40% causing more people to join.
Amazingly, I agree with Saint Cad and Bricker on this issue. I think that most laws concerning unions, on both the pro-union and anti-union side, are unnecessary and counterproductive. Employees should be free to stay out of the union if they choose, and employers should be free to negotiate different contracts with the non-union employees (well, the union could negotiate on their behalf if they wanted to, but they’d have no reason to). It should even be possible to have multiple competing unions at the same workplace, though in practice I’d expect that one would quickly outcompete the other, or they’d merge. The union would likely, by virtue of the power of collective bargaining, negotiate a better contract than the non-union workers. And yes, this would make the non-union workers more appealing to the employer… if they could find them. Because it’d also provide a strong incentive for workers to join the union. And if the union can’t negotiate a good enough contract to incentivize enough workers to join, well, then, the union isn’t doing much good, and it’s no tragedy if they wither away.
A third option would be a contract where union members get less pay and protection than non-union. The unions won’t like it, but non-unions won’t like your option 2 above.
Regards,
Shodan
One contract – that’s the freeloading situation the OP wants to change.
Two contracts – how can that work if the union has to represent everyone? If non-members get an inferior contract, how is the union “representing” them? (Or, maybe the question is, does “representation” mean “equitable representation”?)
Plus, if I don’t join the union, why would my employment be covered by any kind of group contract at all? Wouldn’t I negotiate that individually?
Sorry, I forgot you were the OP. But I still don’t see how your solutions can work.
One quibble- It wouldn’t be either one contract or two. It would either be
- a contract for union members and everyone else negotiates on their own, individually - which most public employers simply will not do.
or
- a contract for union members and everyone else gets treated like public employees who currently cannot join unions. Which generally speaking means there is no negotiation and the employer does everything by fiat. My employer could decide tomorrow that people in my group have to pay twice as much for our health insurance as we do currently* or that we suddenly get 5 days vacation per year instead of 20 or that our salary will be cut by 10% - and our choice will be take it or leave it. Unlike the unions, we don’t have a contract that stays in effect until a new contract is ratified.
This might be what some people mean when they are talking about two contracts- but it is absolutely not a contract in any normal sense of the word.
(The reason my employer doesn’t do that sort of thing more often is because most of these jobs are promotions from union jobs- and if the managers are treated worse than their union-represented subordinates, people don’t take the promotions. There wouldn’t be that sort of brake on the employer if the entry-level people could chose not to join the union.)
Not illegal, just unpopular.
A business could, in principle, have as many different contract deals as they have non-union employees. But it’d be simplest for them to have one generic deal that they offer everyone, take it or leave it, or possibly an offer that might vary from year to year, but which would still be the same for all employees hired at the same time. I’d expect that it’d only be the very rare employee with a highly marketable skill set who would have the clout to negotiate an individual contract.
This does not appear to the consensus, thisarticle says that members-only unions are legal and are active around the country. Consolidate Edison vs NLRB seems to explicitly allow members only unions.
The Indiana Supreme Court in Zoeller vs Sweeney says “The Union’s federal obligation to represent all employees in a bargaining unit is optional”
About your article- I read it . And it contains these quotes
I don't think that anyone has disputed that an organization might call itself a union and not "represent" non-members. But at best, it's unclear if employers must recognize these members only unions and if they have a right to bargain. In any event, once 50.1% of the bargaining unit votes to join a particular union, that union is the exclusive bargaining agent and there is no way currently for them to exclude the other 49.9% from benefiting from the contract. Members-only unions can only exist where less than 50% of the bargaining unit voted to join the union- and again, as stated in the article, most of them do not negotiate wages, benefits or the terms of employment , generally at least in part because public because employees in that jurisdiction are have limited or no rights to collectively bargain regarding those issues.
So, say there’s a public employees union whose members make up 85% of a given blue state’s teachers. They decide to test this situation by negotiating a contract with the state for only their members. The state likes the terms and agrees, then tells the other 15% of workers, “Hey, if you like that deal. join the union. If not, we’ll offer you this (lesser) deal. Take it or leave it.”
The 15% sue the state. Does the GOP back them? On what grounds?
The executive, the CEO, who deeply cares for the well being of the employees exists, I have met several. Thing is, the guy who gets the promotion? When Wall Street totally creams its jeans when they hear the guy is gonna be lean and mean, cut labor costs to the bone. Not his bone, mind you…
There many humanistic executives, but their boss isn’t and won’t be. That’s why he’s the boss, and they aren’t.
Here in Alberta we have lots of trade unions, but no one is forced to use them. Most job sites have union and non-union workers working side by side, at different pay rates.
To survive in this world, the unions actually have to provide value to the companies. So they provide a trained work force, handle HR disputes, manage employee benefits, take care of drug testing and all the other stuff businesses don’t want to have to do. In exchange, they negotiate higher wages for their workers and better benefits. It’s a win-win situation that has to be so because t operates under market forces. If the unions demand too much from the employer than their value warrants, the employer can go elsewhere. The unions can also strike, which can shut down a job completely and cause the company much harm. But if they threaten that too much, again the companies will just transition to non-union workers.
This is the best of all worlds. Collective bargaining is allowed, striking allowed, but ultimately the union still has to operate under the rules of the market - just like everyone else.