Unions are awesome.
I’m working in the IT department of a heavily unionised non-IT company. The contracts the union negotiates with that company (and others in the same sector) apply to all employees in those companies, including those who aren’t themselves union members.
I gotta say, pay might be better elsewhere, but I don’t have to fight for a yearly salary increase. I also don’t worry about being sick. I don’t worry about performance, because they’re not allowed to monitor it. I don’t worry about getting everything done in time either. If I’m overworked, I tell my boss and he has to see about reducing my load. Sure, might just be a good boss, but I’m pretty sure it’s also a workplace culture resulting from knowing we can’t be fired without good reason, and poor performance isn’t one (and might also land you in trouble for monitoring performance).
Many of my coworkers have been there for 20+ years, through ups and downs and management changes and structural changes and all. It’s a good, reliable employer, and a solid union helps keep it that way.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Union benefits shouldn’t be given to non-members.
luciferofastora@feddit.org 2 days ago
Idk, isn’t arranging different employment contracts for employees and non-employees kinda difficult? You’d have to set up a new contract when someone joins or leaves the union.
To be clear, the overarching part the union is responsible for is a framework agreement defining paygrades, holidays and such for all the employees in the sector.
I fudged and conflated the workers’ council with the union, because ultimately, they have similar objectives in protecting workers and my point was to emphasise that good worker representation makes for a stable and pleasant enough working environment.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Let non-members represent themselves during contract negotiations, or be represented by the union if they are a member. The problem with non-members getting the same benefits as members is that there’s no motivation to be a member in the first place, which means the union has less funds and less negotiating power.
luciferofastora@feddit.org 2 days ago
I mean, there’s no real individual contract negotiation. The conditions are standardised by the framework agreement. They use a standard format where they note what pay class you’re paid by according to that agreement and that’s that.
I understand the desire and reasoning to separate into “deserves the benefits of our negotiaton” and “doesn’t support us, doesn’t get anything”. For my employer, the potential advantage of individual contracts doesn’t seem to offset the added effort, so they just throw the rest in with the majority.
As for negotiating power, last time they announced a one-day warning strike after a round of negotiations failed, our CEO was quick to pay out a lump sum to everyone and assure us that they’re committed to finding a fair solution and all. Allegedly, he wasn’t actually opposed to the union’s proposition, but as I said, it’s sector-wide so other employers have to agree as well and apparently didn’t. Still, that even the threat produced a reaction (and there was no full strike after it either) indicates that the union has plenty of power.
I think many of us are aware that, member or not, we wouldn’t have these benefits if we didn’t have the union and just sign up on principle. Most of the sector is blue-collar, and I assume that a majority of them are indeed members.