|
|
|
|
|
|
by kieselguhr_kid
1978 days ago
|
|
|
The difference from a worker's perspective is that increased competition for their work should drive wages up, while increased union "competition" would undermine their bargaining power. But to address your points:
1. Union dues are low. Given what organizing actually looks like, multiple unions are more likely to undermine the existence of a unionized workforce at all than to drive dues down.
2. Ideally, union corruption would be dealt with the entire shop moving to a different local, not the shop splitting into sectors.
3. Workers elect their stewards and negotiators, who set the
negotiating agenda. It's not perfect, but this would be better dealt with by new representation than by adding another union with a competing agenda. Like I said, I believe this reflects a misunderstanding about the function of unions and what workers are trying to get out of them. |
|
|
It couldn't undermine it compared to no union at all, could it? It seems like still a net improvement.