Ignorant question. But how do union dues work? Is it a percentage of your paycheck or a fixes cost?
Also I assume there’s a formation/founding cost. How does that work?
Also I assume there’s a formation/founding cost. How does that work?
Founding, organizing, and legal stuff for newly forming unions can be handled by the larger organization (e.g. CWA) using pooled dues from existing unions within that organization.
Unfortunately, with larger unions, or those with weaker consciousness and mis-perceptions of what a union is supposed to be - there's alienation between the member worker on one hand and the union and its operatives on the other, and then dues payment seems to be something transactional: "What will you get me in exchange for what I pay you?"
This probably wouldn't translate well to software. But it works great if you are installing ducts. Same goes for plumbers and electricians. My sisters first husband was a union electrician. That is why I looked into getting a union gig. I hate job hunting.
In the years I did it I worked for five different companies. I didn't have to run around dropping off resumes and doing practice tests. I just got a call from the union and was told where to go to work. And I made significantly more than my non-union counterparts. Easily more than the dues I had to pay.
Unions don't sell themselves to companies in the first place.
The same reason your criminal defense attorney doesn't sell themselves to the public prosecutor's office.
No, I'm implying that working for an actor’s counterparty compromises your ability to represent that actor in adversarial interactions with the same counterparty, which is a core function of unions with respect to employers as it is with defense attorneys with respect to prosecutors.
> companies certainly have the option to hire employees that do not work for unions.
Not in the US; even where union shops are prohibited by state right-to-work laws, adverse employment decisions on the basis of union membership or union-related activity by an employer are prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. That is, in some cases, employers are allowed to hire employees who aren't members of a union, but they aren't legally permitted to hire employees because (even in part) they aren't members of unions.
In the US, do you think companies have not moved manufacturing from union plants to non-union plants? Do you think they have not moved manufacturing out of US plants? Do you think this does not have to do with union membership?
I believe the adversarial view of unions and employers results in inefficiency and waste. I was suggesting an alternative view of unions and employers, but I believe I now understand you: you think this is impossible.
Unions (or their leadership) perceived as serving management are removed, invariably and swiftly, by their constituents, whether through decertification or leadership elections.
If you try to UBER union electricians you are probably going to be in for a rude awakening.
What's the rude awakening that I should expect?
Put it this way, when I worked at startups that owed me a raise they couldn't afford, I've offered several times to take a 0% raise in exchange for a 10% reduction in hours. Not a single company has taken that offer and several thought I was trying to be funny.
I was not.
It depends, some unions have it as a percentage of salary, others have a set rate per position (all juniors pay X, all mids pay Y, etc.), and yet other have a single fixed amount for all members.
That, at least in the US, is the common case. It is also extremely tempting - and I say this as a past union activist - to go for this option.
2. If, however, the union values its independence from the employer, then union dues are collected either:
2.1 By hand from time to time (much harder, but you get independence from the banking system), or
2.2 Each member signs a standing transfer order, transferring a certain amount of money from their account to the union every month/quarter/year. It's still a challenge to collect anything from non-members, despite them enjoying everything the unionized workers have achieved.
Regarding 2, is there any reason the union achievements must apply to non-union workers as well?
* Unions putting a lid on actual rank-and-file demands and initiatives.
* No or rare collective action.
* No solidarity action with non-unionized workers, workers from oppressed social groups etc.
* Political support by unions for the regime in general and for dominant factions within government in particular.
* Employers acting in concert with union by dues checkoff and requiring new hires to join (or go through the union to be employed).
* Legislation enshrining this arrangement, or preventing legal action against it.
... which explains why I didn't mention this consideration.
1. Union activities are fundamentally based on a perception of a common cause, common interests, common destiny of all workers - in your company, or in general.
2. It is a much weaker achievement to get an employer to give some people some more. The more meaningful struggle (and in fact - what is often the only real game you can play) is the struggle of "what is an employee doing some kind of work entitled to" - that is, a struggle over what's standard, what's necessary, what's appropriate vs unacceptable. But if there are two categories of rights/benefits, the better category is always that of privilege, and you've never convinced the employer nor yourselves that you are due any of those things by virtue of your being a worker. At most it is by virtue of some kind of alliance with the employer at the expense of the underprivileged.
3. The more fractured the modes of employment are, the more leeway managers and personnel dept. people have to manipulate and apply leverage to individual employees: "Will you be in status X or status Y next year? Hmm, let's see. Well, you did A, and we didn't really like that. I don't know if I can authorize you being a Y" and so on. Also, you (= the union) will be playing cat-and-mouse with the employer all the time about who gets employed in what status exactly; and the more combinations you get the harder it is to keep track of everything and also have a credible and actionable perception of what's it like for the various groups within the rank-and-file.