[the_bear]

Is anyone aware of an example where (a) a really small company unionized and/or (b) a workforce unionized without any real demands?

I run a 17 person company and I've heard employees mention that they think all companies should be unionized even if there aren't currently any problems that the union would seek to address. I strongly support the big tech companies unionizing and so it would be hypocritical of me to be opposed to it for my own company, but at the same time it seems like the overhead for such a small company would be really significant and I'm not sure what it would accomplish given that I'm not aware of current employees having any demands that we haven't satisfied already.

Even if nothing comes of it, I think it's an interesting thought experiment.

[WesleyLivesay]

I think in that case the value of unionization might not be in the present but instead guarding against future problems that the union would seek to fight against. It is much easier to proactively organize, and then keep those problems out, then to try to organize and fight after they already are present.

[lazyasciiart]

What is the overhead?

[the_bear]

I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the logistics of unions, but I imagine there's some kind of up-front legal overhead. Like, maybe there are contracts between the union and the company, or within the union itself to determine how it's governed? I also get the impression there is some overhead in an ongoing basis in the form of extra meetings, more complicated negotiations, etc.

All of those things seem like relatively minor costs when spread out across a large employee base, but I could see it being prohibitive for a smaller company. Or maybe this is a solved problem and you can just find some boilerplate stuff online that takes care of the whole process.

[StudentStuff]

It seems your mis-understanding what a union is, the union will talk with management, forming an agreement as to what the pay scales are, how much paid leave is given at minimum, and escalation processes like grieving an issue when management does shitty things to the workers.

The "overhead" you speak of is to pay someone to negotiate on the workers behalf, save up for a strike stipend, and provide worker training (usually Unions will run or subsidize courses to help workers skill up, get licensed, etc).

[solidasparagus]

And now you have a fixed payscale that could easily make it harder to hire.

[pjc50]

There is as much overhead as people want there to be.

That is, so long as the employees are content, it will be very low; try to do things that they don't like and the cost will go up.

[asdff]

It's a very important mechanism to have even if you have 2 employees. Being able to collectively bargain empowers workers at companies at any size, and mitigates retaliation that could happen to individual workers who attempt to bring up grievances.

[deft]

As the owner you wouldn't be part of the union so there would be no "overhead" for you anyway. Do you understand how unions work?

[the_bear]

Not as well as I'd like which is why I'm asking about this. I meant this as a discussion starter about unions at smaller companies, so even if I'm not the one paying the overhead, it's still relevant to the topic of whether or not a union makes sense.