| ▲ | derektank a day ago |
| I’m familiar with sectoral bargaining in the abstract but wasn’t aware European workers had the ability to choose which union represented them in negotiations. How does that work in practice? |
|
| ▲ | sockbot a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not only in Europe, but in Canada too. Think of the union as a corpo offering bargaining and administrative services. Unions compete with each other for workforces. The typical case would be for a newly unionizing workforce needing to choose which union to join. It is rare, but a workforce can even choose to move to a different union. |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jgalt212 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | But without a monopsony how do these choose your own adventure unions have any real bargaining power? | | |
| ▲ | jshier a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In countries where meta-strikes are legal, the unions cooperate on basic rights, and strike together when needed. Such coordination is explicitly illegal in the US, and has been since the '30s (IIRC). | |
| ▲ | reverius42 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It sounds like they'd at least have more power than a single-employer union, by virtue of being larger and having more resources. | | |
| ▲ | jgalt212 a day ago | parent [-] | | I'd much rather run a factory where only 10% of my workers may strike than one where 90% may strike. | | |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent [-] | | It is usually like 2 or 3 and they will strike together. Having multiple keeps the unions in check and arguing for a pay raise for 60% of workers and nothing for 40%. I that case, the 40 would form their own union |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | legitster a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Depends on the country. In a lot of countries, it's not much different than choosing a pension fund option. You join a job, you choose which union best represents you based on your industry/title/etc (if you are not already a member). If you are not happy with your current agreement, you choose a different union that promises better outcomes. It's so much less extreme than US unionization. There's not much reason for hostility between business and unions - unions don't get these all or nothing powers like they do in the US. |
| |
| ▲ | fl0id a day ago | parent [-] | | US unionization tbh sounds a bit like works council election in Germany, as that happens per business / vendor etc and fe in case of delivery apps or Tesla, Amazon etc is met with hostility | | |
| ▲ | legitster a day ago | parent [-] | | Maybe if you squint a little. Once a workplace is unionized in the US, members have no real say or transparency to the union negotiation process. The union reps do not even have to work at the facility (in many larger unions, they are professionals paid for by the union). Elections are only union wide, not specific to the company. And there is not really any day-to-day advisory capacity. Unions reps only exist to enforce the contract as signed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | adw a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is common for big workplaces to have multiple unions and essentially all unions are sectoral and role-specific rather than company specific. Take the NHS; it will have to deal with ten plus separate unions - https://nhsunions.org/#about – of which the biggest powers are the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, but the cleaners are GMB or Unite and they're huge pan-working-class institutions. Education has to deal with the NEU, the NASUWT, and the NAHT, each of which has a different political slant. Some unions in the UK have been historically rather centrist in their politics (a good example of that is Prospect, https://prospect.org.uk/about/, which is a roll-up of a number of scientific and finance unions), some are firebreathing communists, but all of them work across employers. There's also no such thing as a closed shop in the UK – because there are much stronger worker protections, there's less of a need for one. (I was, at one time, in a majority-UCU workplace; https://www.ucu.org.uk.) |
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster a day ago | parent [-] | | There's also nothing stopping people being in multiple unions, a lot of IWW members are. |
|
|
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It depends heavily on the country but a worker at a company can pick a union to represent them. You might see a billboards saying join Union a or Union B. If you Union a is corrupt or screwing over one group of workers in favor of another group of worker, the laborers will just leave it and go to a different one. This solves a lot of problems with us unions, where they have a state sanctioned Monopoly on the workers. The classic example is unions are going for terms that screw over junior members but there are other perverse examples. At my friend's company the Union demanded that it be forced to return to office because the larger number of field technicians we're a voting majority of the union and angry they couldn't work from home. |
| |
| ▲ | legitster a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > The classic example is unions are going for terms that screw over junior members but there are other perverse examples.' The story I always think of is the Port of Portland shutting down was because the ILWU organized a $20 million dollar slowdown to punish the operator. The operator ended up pulling out of the city never to return, costing all the ILWU workers their jobs, as well as the city of Portland a few million a year in taxes. The reason for the $20 million dollar slow down? The ILWU wanted to take two jobs away on the site from the IBEW! | |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the otherhand, having a plethora of unions at a workplace weakens labor's bargaining power: A US union, by the nature of having a closed shop, has the power to destroy the business with a prolonged strike. Nobody wants that (capital's out their investment, labor's out their jobs), but it serves as the nuclear option from which the union's bargaining power is derived. | | |
| ▲ | annzabelle a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This makes US unions very all or nothing, and excessive demands from unions (particularly RE: pensions) have driven many businesses out of business and bankrupted many municipalities. My understanding is German and Scandinavian unions are much more collaborative and are unlikely to force demands that bankrupt companies. This is why unions have such a negative connotation in the US. A lot of people see municipal governments being held hostage by unions over pensions and early retirement, and union employees being so hard to fire that you end up with "rubber rooms" and end up associating unions with expensive enshittification of services. | | |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unions have a negative connotation in the US because the there is a lot of money in giving them one. The US union structure arose because they predate any legal protections. You don't need the law to protect you for a strike to kill a company, it just (mostly) prevents the spiraling violence that often would ensue. |
| |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you are confusing terms. Closed (only members can even apply to work) shops were outlawed in the us in 1947. 24 states allow Union shops (workers must join the union after hire). In theory multiple unions could strike together. Alternatively, dissenting members of a single union can keep working. In both systems striking is the union leverage. | | |
| ▲ | OkayPhysicist 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah, I missed the difference between union shops and closed shops. But that alternative of dissenting unions not striking is exactly the loss of leverage that I was talking about. | |
| ▲ | malmz 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Multiple unions striking is not just theoretical but the norm i Europe. There was a large strike against Tesla in Sweden. Many unions across the supply chain joined the strike in solidarity. |
|
|
|