Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pseudalopex 2705 days ago
Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit. States can decide whether unions can recover those costs from all workers they represent or just members. Mandatory membership is illegal.

Both entrenched unions and corporate interests support the status quo. It strengthens strong unions but makes organizing new unions harder.
2 comments
chimeracoder 2705 days ago
> Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit.

As I've explained above, this is true but misleading. They are required to represent all workers in a bargaining unit, but they can define the bargaining unit however they wish, including defining the bargaining unit to encompass only workers who have decided to sign up for the union and pay their dues. The only thing they cannot do is create contracts which apply to non-members and refuse to represent those non-members.

> Mandatory membership is illegal.

This is a common misconception. Closed shops are illegal, but it is legal for an employer to require (pursuant to a union contract) that employees join the union within 30 days or risk being fired (excluding railway, airline, and government employees).

Unions can also expel members from their union, and if they have an exclusive contract with the employer, this may result in the employer being forced to fire the employee in question, depending on the reason for which they are expelled.

link
stale2002 2705 days ago
> Federal law requires unions to represent all workers in a bargaining unit.

This statement is misleading to the point of it being a lie.

It is perfectly legal for a union to define the "bargaining unit" as "people who join this origanization".

Unions don't want to do this though. They instead want to force everyone to join.

link
pseudalopex 2704 days ago
Federal law does not recognize members-only unions.
link
stale2002 2704 days ago
Yes it does...

Members only unions are explicitly in the National Labor Relations Act.

link
pseudalopex 2703 days ago
We can quibble about how to describe it, but members-only unions in the US do not have the same standing as majority unions in the US or members-only unions elsewhere. Employers are free to ignore them. They can't negotiate exclusive benefits. Members can't commit to collective bargaining. The prevailing legal opinion seems to be that the NLRA does not allow a union to represent more than 50% but less than 100% of a potential bargaining unit.
link
stale2002 2701 days ago
> They can't negotiate exclusive benefits

Well, obviously. They can make whatever negotiations that they want for their own benefits.

What they cannot do is negotiate for other people who have chosen to not join the union, which is what the word "exclusive" implies.

So yes, they can negotiate. For themselves. Not for other people. Which makes sense, why the heck should they have the right to negotiate a contract for people that they don't represent?

The can absolutely negotiate for themselves, though. Just like you and I can negotiate a contract for ourselves.

link
pseudalopex 2701 days ago
It's the other way around. Employers are generally prohibited from bargaining with minority unions.[1] They can change policies that apply to everyone.

[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/i...

link