[jeanjogr]

I have never been able to quite grasp what it means to "unionize" in the US.

Here in my country, unions work like political parties (which I understand is not exactly enticing right now):

- you are free to join or not

- there are elected workers' representatives whether there are unions are not

- unions serve to organize workers for action and representatives elections, support candidates, and provide additional services as well

In this context, there is no one big vote to unionize or not, and no "union jobs". How does it work in the US?

[s1artibartfast]

In the US, when a company unionizes a job class, all applicable employees must then pay the union for representing them in negotiations. Only one union can represent a class of workers.

In 27/50 states workers who opt out of union membership loose the power to vote in union matters, but still are governed by union negotiations and must pay the unions "agency fees" for representing them. They no longer have to pay for political campaigning and lobbying by the union on other activism.

In 23/50 states, workers can not opt out of union dues and the union can spend the dues to campaign for political figures and issues.

Unions generally support Democratic politicians and agendas, and unions have high approval Among members of the Democratic Party. Republican Party members disfavor unions and resent obligatory union dues used to fund the party they do not support.

I much prefer the European concept of unions, where employees can pick and choose between different options

[pseudalopex]

You're confused. 27 states allow non members to pay nothing. 23 states allow private sector unions to charge agency fees. Charging non members for political activities is illegal federally. And the Supreme Court decided everything public sector unions do is political.

[s1artibartfast]

Thank you for the correction, I misremembered the definitions

27 states are "right-to-work" states [1] The remaining 23 allow "Union Security Agreements" between employers and unions where all employees are required to be members. [2] The 23 states without right-to-work allow agency fees. However, these 23 states also allow "union shops", where non-membership is not an option, so everyone can be charged for political activates.

Another big change since I last looked is that the US supreme court struck down agency fees for all government employees in 2018, including the 23 states.

[1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/right-to-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement

[pseudalopex]

Union shop is illegal federally. Some people say union shop when they mean agency shop though. The Wikipedia article says agency shop is a form of union security agreement.

[s1artibartfast]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of a closed shop?

My understanding is that closed shops where you need membership to apply are illegal, but union shops (post-entry closed shops) are legal in states without right-to-work.[1]

That said, I was wrong before and may be wrong again. It is really hard to understand the specifics of union law as many sources are sloppy with their terms and there are state-to-state differences?

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-an-agency-shop-vs-...

PS, I really appreciate your use of "You're confused". It is much more polite than some of the contradictions people use.

[pseudalopex]

"Full union membership thus no longer can be a requirement of employment. If a new employee refuses formally to join a union and subject himself to its discipline, he cannot be fired. Moreover, no employee can be discharged if he initially joins a union, and subsequently resigns."[1]

[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/473/95.html

[jeanjogr]

I guess the main difference is that in the US (as far as I understand) there is no official workers representation outside of unions, thus some characteristics of workers' representatives are done by the union in the US (you get represented even if you did not vote for them).

Much like the role of the party and State organs in one-party state vs many parties democracies. In the former the roles are much more muddied between the two.

[random5634]

The US is a bit different.

1) Many unions are govt unions - think police, prison guard, teachers.

2) For closed shop states, if a union wins election, EVERYONE has to join the union.

3) A history of corruption in unions in some cases.

4) There is a perception in the US that unions and lazy workers overlap.

Teachers unions, prison guard unions, police unions - they need to have some real good examples of the successes unions can bring. Internationally (at least in EU in my experience) there really are those. In the US it's a bit muddied.

The latest example I saw, a parent wanted to try and get schools to reopen. Union called them racist -

"she was being racist and not considering “the needs of brown/black families who 'predominantly want to stay home' as evidenced by the several months old OUSD survey that was sent out to all district parents."

Stuff like this is kind of eye rolling. The union starts calling folks racist for wanting their kids in school? Do the black/brown folks they are speaking for even agree with these claims?

[pseudalopex]

All states are open shop or agency shop. Federal law prohibits closed shop.

[rendang]

Not knowing what country you are in, I would bet that the situation of unions there ultimately is a result of the global labor movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, which came to be via strikes and grassroots union organizing activities.

[jeanjogr]

Is that not the case in the US as well?

[rendang]

Of course, yes, I am trying to say that what you are describing as US-style unionization is closer to how unions have historically worked. It would be your country's situation that is exceptional, because apparently workers there have won so much power, that militant/grassroots organizing is less necessary.