Is joining a union in your country mandatory? (or can be made mandatory?). I am not talking about peer pressure but legal requirements.
This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?
This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?
So it's important to remember that European Unions and American Unions are NOT the same thing! Despite having the same name.
In the US the union is directly tied to the job, you can't pick your union. In Europe you can chose your union.
This "little" difference dramatically changes the unions, and is the reason why a majority of Americans hate unions.
It depends on the work. In my high tech company there are I think 5 unions, all more or less equal (one of them is more "blue collar" oriented but still). When there are elections, it is usually a matter of preference of people who are in the union, more than whet they will do.
It is how they hold their power. If it was optional, they would whither away over time.
In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected.
If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away.
Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some places like positions in the administration, the famous fonctionnaires where everybody is on the street when the post office is required to be open outside the times "10:30 to 12:30, except on Mondays", for which their ancestors fought :))
We have a love-hate relationship with unions (which of the love or hate depends on whether you need to take a train and you forgot that there are only 126 days in the year when they are not on strike :))
Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.).
I'm trying to find a generous interpretation of your comment, but it comes across as one of those overly libertarian theoretical perspectives that tends to break down in practice.
If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well.
The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The correct solution is to break up the monopoly.
See my previous comment about theory breaking down in practice. There are all kinds of asymmetries that make economies not function correctly in a theoretical sense and we (as a society) develop policies to mitigate those dysfunctions.
I don't know that the scales operate in ways that allow for every corporate (pseudo)monopoly to be broken up and still have viable industries. Especially in countries that succumb to regulatory capture. That means there would need to be some countervailing balance to that power, and that's where unions come in.
If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.
Laws change every day. There must be a working process for that.
Otherwise, I think you might be a little optimistic here.
small example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(Minneapolis)
1. A comment about how in general there should be a way to do that, but not engaging in the topic, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it, giving none back, and just mildly sneering at anyone foolish enough to join such a basal endeavor as a union.
2. A comment about how we would need to accomplish that goal and that establishing the working process should come before unionizing as it is the proper solution to the problem, ceding all power to the corporations which would be glad to take it until we solved the problem that is effectively created by corporations to be unsolveable.
Collective action works, it solves problems, it gives workers space to live and have basic rights, and we don't have to throw up our hands and say "there must be a better way!"
Because of this requirement, some people argue in favor of permitting mandatory union membership, on the basis that without it, individual workers can free-ride, enjoying the superior pay and benefits the union negotiates on their behalf without joining and paying union dues.
Others argue that forcing people to join a union and pay dues is illiberal, and should be outlawed.
This is the crux of the "right-to-work law" debate, where "right-to-work" describes laws that make it illegal to require union membership as a condition of employment.
Personally, I find it odd that federal law requires labor unions to negotiate on behalf of non-members, but I am also not particularly well informed on the topic.
About 10% of the workforce is unionized and only a few percent of the unions funds come from the members. The rest is from companies (mandatory fund), the region, ...