Some "knowledge worker" roles in phone companies are CWA positions.
Many things that are decided today based upon merit or by management discretion become tenure based. That is good and bad.
The good: - Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract. - Your pay will be more predictable. - Benefits will probably be better. - You will have an advocate in the event of a dispute.
The bad: - Your contract will require things to be done in a fair and equitable way, per the contract. - Everyone has an incentive to stick around. - Certain types of people are very good at manipulating systems to their benefit. (This is present in all organizations, but the dynamic is different with a union)
I've worked in union positions in the past. IMO, the best thing about it is that there are no secrets with regard to compensation.
The alternative is to negotiate really collectively at the government level and outright ban the onerous contract provisions, like California's done with many forms of noncompetes.
I'm not anti-union either. If you're in a big multinational company, they are almost almost certainly better than not having a union.
I'm all for fair play and sensible regulations, but if the company can't forbid the workers from quitting, I don't see how it's fair that the workers can forbid the company from hiring someone else.
I much prefer being on my own for negotiations. I intend to be one of the best workers; why tie my fate to the average? And why tie the company to me if they can find a better employee?
Power and information asymmetry are the rule when you are negotiating with your boss independently. He knows what the other employees at your company make. You do not.
And now you have two bosses and two problems. I recommend watching "Waiting For Superman" to see how the teacher's union impedes innovation in education.
The big takeaway I take from this is we should move toward a Scandinavian attitude on unions.