There’s a concept where I’m from of an employee committee, which is just an assembly of the workers in a particular workplace and a valid actor in collective bargaining. I’ve been a part of one to negotiate specific policies.
Still a collective bargaining agent, though. Whether or not it fits the US’s specific legal categorization of a union, engaging in collective negotiations with employers in an organized manner is fairly universally applicable and positive. “Unions just don’t fit this kind of work” sounds a heck of a lot like an excuse to avoid having collective bargaining altogether.
I’m not, I’m saying an individual is indulging themselves by simply hand-waiving any employment related problem as “just start collective bargaining and your problems are solved!!!”
Well, if they’re handwaving and not organizing, then yeah. If they’re actually organizing, then no.
In almost all circumstances, being organized for bargaining is going to be better than not being organized for bargaining. That holds whether you’re hand-waving your problems before getting organized or not.
…. You understand that those are two different people, right? The person hand-waving how easy starting a union is and how easily beneficial it can be is not the same person as the worker who has to do the thing lol
Ah, gotcha. Well, my point stands. Unless your hypothetical hand-waver is unemployed or already in an union, I suppose.
I’m not American, so I don’t know how hard it is to unionize in the US. Over here there are massive unions with country-wide presence that typically can set up where needed, as well as segment-specific unions. I’m pretty sure you can either start a new one with a handful of people or just… you know, call a preexisting one and sign up. I’ve heard about companies in the US having way more restrictive steps, having to agree company-wide to unionize and stuff like that. That’s… not how we do it.
It’s very hard here, especially depending on your circumstances - and even when a union is formed they’re often unable to really… get any meaningful progress. Depending on your particular employment, it’s effectively impossible - and it gets harder the poorer you are.
It’s why it’s sometimes frustrating to hear Americans tell other Americans (often less well off than they are) to “just form a Union!”. The leftist version of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”
You can organize, unionized or not, and it seems like organization is a gateway to unionization, regardless of how hard that may be. And it is a fact that organization and collective bargaining will help and is a key path to improvements, so even if it’s hard, it’s still the way to go.
And hey, ultimately the goal is to keep electing pro-unionization leaders so it becomes easier to it’s more feasible. But you don’t stop doing it or recommending it just because it’s harder there.
Okay, so a bunch of people organize and then the boss fires all of them for doing so. That’s not exactly a perfect system leading towards better working conditions
There’s a concept where I’m from of an employee committee, which is just an assembly of the workers in a particular workplace and a valid actor in collective bargaining. I’ve been a part of one to negotiate specific policies.
Still a collective bargaining agent, though. Whether or not it fits the US’s specific legal categorization of a union, engaging in collective negotiations with employers in an organized manner is fairly universally applicable and positive. “Unions just don’t fit this kind of work” sounds a heck of a lot like an excuse to avoid having collective bargaining altogether.
I’m not, I’m saying an individual is indulging themselves by simply hand-waiving any employment related problem as “just start collective bargaining and your problems are solved!!!”
Well, if they’re handwaving and not organizing, then yeah. If they’re actually organizing, then no.
In almost all circumstances, being organized for bargaining is going to be better than not being organized for bargaining. That holds whether you’re hand-waving your problems before getting organized or not.
…. You understand that those are two different people, right? The person hand-waving how easy starting a union is and how easily beneficial it can be is not the same person as the worker who has to do the thing lol
Ah, gotcha. Well, my point stands. Unless your hypothetical hand-waver is unemployed or already in an union, I suppose.
I’m not American, so I don’t know how hard it is to unionize in the US. Over here there are massive unions with country-wide presence that typically can set up where needed, as well as segment-specific unions. I’m pretty sure you can either start a new one with a handful of people or just… you know, call a preexisting one and sign up. I’ve heard about companies in the US having way more restrictive steps, having to agree company-wide to unionize and stuff like that. That’s… not how we do it.
It’s very hard here, especially depending on your circumstances - and even when a union is formed they’re often unable to really… get any meaningful progress. Depending on your particular employment, it’s effectively impossible - and it gets harder the poorer you are.
It’s why it’s sometimes frustrating to hear Americans tell other Americans (often less well off than they are) to “just form a Union!”. The leftist version of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”
Yeeeeah, see, there you lose me.
You can organize, unionized or not, and it seems like organization is a gateway to unionization, regardless of how hard that may be. And it is a fact that organization and collective bargaining will help and is a key path to improvements, so even if it’s hard, it’s still the way to go.
And hey, ultimately the goal is to keep electing pro-unionization leaders so it becomes easier to it’s more feasible. But you don’t stop doing it or recommending it just because it’s harder there.
Okay, so a bunch of people organize and then the boss fires all of them for doing so. That’s not exactly a perfect system leading towards better working conditions