|
|
|
|
|
by chimeracoder
2939 days ago
|
|
> The equilibrium that I would like to see is the opposite: no forced membership and no requirement to represent non-members. There is no requirement to represent non-members. There is a requirement to represent all members of the bargaining unit. The union is free to define a narrower bargaining unit that only includes non-members. In the US, unions choose not to do this because they can always define a larger bargaining unit and collect fees from non-members, and there's almost no downside for them to do so. In other countries, unions aren't allowed to redefine bargaining units unilaterally, or aren't allowed to collect fees from non-members, or aren't allowed exclusive representation over non-members. |
|
Do you know of any unions that have atypical bargaining units, like covering everyone in a particular line of business or people in 2 very different jobs?