Woman exempted from union membership due to religious beliefs

[crazy canuck]

Thanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?

I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting.  Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.

What exactly does unionize mean here? I assume it means more than forming a union?

Normally it means that a union has been certified to represent the workers at a particular worksite - that is an oversimplification, but for the purposes of your question it will suffice.

Once certified, the union then negotiates directly with the employer to get a collective agreement which will apply to all workers at the site who are covered by the collective agreement. So basically wages, benefits and working conditions will be agreed to between the union and the employer.  Workers who are not covered by the collective agreement are typically management types - and they enter into their own personal individual contracts of employment with the employer.  In most jurisdictions, union membership is required to work in a job which is subject to a collective agreement or union certification.  Places where that is not the case, and belonging to a union is optional, are generally jurisdictions where there are a number of laws which make union certification and the results of becoming certified much more onerous on a union. 

[The Brain]

Thanks. Would the lack of a law that makes it obligatory to be in the union be considered a union busting law do you think?

I'm not sure lack of a law would be considered a law per se, but lack of laws preventing corporations from busting up attempts to unionize would certainly promote union-busting.  Union-busting is an activity more than a law, IMO.

What exactly does unionize mean here? I assume it means more than forming a union?

Normally it means that a union has been certified to represent the workers at a particular worksite - that is an oversimplification, but for the purposes of your question it will suffice.

Once certified, the union then negotiates directly with the employer to get a collective agreement which will apply to all workers at the site who are covered by the collective agreement. So basically wages, benefits and working conditions will be agreed to between the union and the employer.  Workers who are not covered by the collective agreement are typically management types - and they enter into their own personal individual contracts of employment with the employer.  In most jurisdictions, union membership is required to work in a job which is subject to a collective agreement or union certification.  Places where that is not the case, and belonging to a union is optional, are generally jurisdictions where there are a number of laws which make union certification and the results of becoming certified much more onerous on a union. 

What's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?

[crazy canuck]

What's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?

The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board.  It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.

The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace.  That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers.  This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.

Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit.  The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers.  This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union.  The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.

 

[The Brain]

What's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?

The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board.  It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.

The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace.  That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers.  This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.

Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit.  The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers.  This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union.  The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.

 

Thanks!

In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.

[Berkut]

Why would they necessarily get the benefits if they opt out?

Why can't those who opt out NOT get the benefits of the union in return for not choosing to join it?

The company can negotiate with those who opt out separately, right? Presumably if the Union is doing their job, the benefit of joining it ought to be obviously better for the employee, forcing the company to get its workers from the union pool.

[crazy canuck]

Why would they necessarily get the benefits if they opt out?

Why can't those who opt out NOT get the benefits of the union in return for not choosing to join it?

The company can negotiate with those who opt out separately, right? Presumably if the Union is doing their job, the benefit of joining it ought to be obviously better for the employee, forcing the company to get its workers from the union pool.

I am not sure how that works.  If a union is the certified bargaining agent for all employees of a particular description, it is not then possible to opt out of that representation.

I am not sure how the states where this sort of thing happens deal with it, I suspect it is that the unions are not actually certified to negotiate on behalf of all employees.  But then that sort of defeats the whole purpose of collective bargaining.

[crazy canuck]

What's the purpose of certification? Which is the certifying authority?

The certification hearing is normally conducted through the labour board.  It is a statutory body which regulates labour law matters and is given the statutory authority to determine these questions.

The purpose of certification is to determine two things a) whether the union has met the statutory requirements to become certified to the workplace.  That generally involves determining if the union has the requirement amount of support amongst the workers; and b) who will be the union certified to act as the bargaining agent for the workers.  This is rarer, but there can be fights between unions as to who should be certified as the bargaining agent.

Once a union is certified to be the bargaining agent, the employer must now deal with the union directly and cannot make separate agreements with the workers in the bargaining unit.  The union now handles all negotiations, grievances etc on behalf of the workers.  This is administratively costly, and so one tactic of antiunion politicians is to pass legislation which allows workers to opt out from joining the union.  The people who opt out then get all the benefits of the work of the union without paying the dues required to pay for that work.

 

Thanks!

In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.

Yes, this is the b part I was mentioning.  Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site.  The workers get to decide which union will represent them.  And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.

[The Brain]

Yes, this is the b part I was mentioning.  Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site.  The workers get to decide which union will represent them.  And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.

In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, this is the b part I was mentioning.  Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site.  The workers get to decide which union will represent them.  And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.

In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.

Is it then possible for two employees, doing exactly the same job, to have different pay, benefits, etc. because they have different unions?  Or do the unions bargain collectively with the employer?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Thanks!

In Sweden you pick which union you want to be in, if any, looking at which ones accept your profession as members, their size, and what their fees and services look like. As a member you get union services that non-members of course don't get. It's illegal to punish an employee for being in a union. The system seems to work fine.

There is a decent difference in how continental Europe (and to an extent the Nordic countries, which are slightly different from continental Europe) has handled labor unions and the Anglosphere--I don't know the full history but there are more similarities among the Anglo countries than most of continental Europe and vice versa--but no two countries have identical labor laws so there is a bit of generalization going on in this explanation.

Roughly speaking, many continental European countries unionism is typically going to mean that bargaining often happens at a sectoral level. Meaning a large union that represents say, pipe fitters, working anywhere in the country, negotiates sectoral agreements. All employers in the country then have to abide by those agreements when employing an employee of that union. Individual shops (union-speak for "work location"), may have members of several sectoral unions all working under the same roof, and the worker chooses which union (if any) to be part of; many of the sectoral agreements the large unions negotiate benefit all workers, but sometimes there are union-specific benefits and such.

The Anglosphere has more of an employer-centric form of unionization--bargaining agreements are between unions and a specific employer, with lots of variation between the countries.

In the United States, historically we had the "closed shop", which meant if a union had an agreement with an employer at a specific location, that employer would not hire anyone who was not a member of that union. As an example imagine a major port city, and there are a number of employers with facilities at the port. There is one union representing all the dockworkers, and none of the companies operating out of the port will hire anyone who is not a member of the dock workers union. To get a job as a dock worker means you first have to apply and join the union, and then usually based on seniority (how long you have been in the union), in the daily hire-out, union members get assigned to specific jobs to work and unload ships.

This was frequently open to very serious abuse--and often organized crime involvement as well. This form of closed shop union became illegal in the United States in 1947, and I think Britain outlawed it under Thatcher. I'm less familiar with how Australia and Canada handle this.

However, many jobs in the United States through the 1980s continued to require union membership. How? With what is called the post-entry union shop--in that system an employer could hire whomever they wanted, but within a set period of time (negotiated by the union, often 30 / 60 / or 90 days) that new hire had to join the union that represented the shop. If the employee refused to do so, they were dismissed from employment. This is still law of the land in a number of States. Red states have eliminated this through what they call "right to work" laws, which are functionally union busting laws. In "right to work" states, a union shop still has to hire non-union workers, but cannot compel them to join the union, so it creates (an intentional) freerider problem for the union--because under these laws the non-joiners get all the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement but do not have to pay anything into the union.

Some States created a hybrid called the "agency shop", where you can refuse to join the union, but you still had to pay an agency fee to the union that organized the workplace, by law in agency shop States, the agency fee typically has to be a pro-rated fee based on the actual administrative costs of performing collective bargaining. For regular union members, they pay a higher fee than the freeriders who are paying an agency fee--and some of that higher fee goes to various union activities not directly related to collective bargaining.

The Supreme Court has issued several rulings since 1985 that have created carve outs to many of these laws, which have further undermined the viability of union shops in the United States.

Muddying things considerably--I said at the beginning of my post that sector wide negotiations are more typical of continental European systems--but there is actually some level of sector wide negotiating that happens with unions in the Anglo countries as well, it just usually is not the primary mechanism of union agreement, and that also varies considerably by industry.

[The Brain]

Yes, this is the b part I was mentioning.  Sometimes two or more unions compete to represent the employees at a particular work site.  The workers get to decide which union will represent them.  And if one union already represents are large number of workers across a number of jobs, a competitor union might come in and "raid" some of that membership with the claim that they will be better at representing that subset of workers - its pretty common with workers with specific skills/concerns.

In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.

Is it then possible for two employees, doing exactly the same job, to have different pay, benefits, etc. because they have different unions?  Or do the unions bargain collectively with the employer?

I'm not sure of all the details, if there is collaboration like that between unions and what it looks like, and the details around central negotiations etc (thanks OvB for describing the basic European system). Pay is normally individual though, and unions don't negotiate on the detailed level of every specific individual's pay (but if the union thinks that a member is getting shafted they can get involved).

[The Brain]

Oh and thanks OvB for the detailed description of the US system.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure of all the details, if there is collaboration like that between unions and what it looks like, and the details around central negotiations etc (thanks OvB for describing the basic European system). Pay is normally individual though, and unions don't negotiate on the detailed level of every specific individual's pay (but if the union thinks that a member is getting shafted they can get involved).

Yeah - interestingly when Labour moved to supporting the end of the closed shop in the 80s it was explicitly described as bringing the UK in line with Europe (and reflecting the Social Charter which included a right to join or not to join a union). I think it was Tony Blair's first big shadow cabinet job and very much part of his view of modernisation and Europe being totally intwined.

Not sure how they work but there are definitely different unions in the same workplace here - who can have different styles and priorities. I work for a media organisation and editorial staff are ovewhelmingly in the National Union of Journalists, while union members in the rest of the organisation tend to be in different unions (I think mainly Unite, but I could be wrong).

The negotiations are between the business and "the unions" in general. I'm not fully sure how they work and I assume the unions cooperate but clearly there will be issues and interests that are specifically relevant to editorial/non-editorial workers so they may have different approaches.

Similarly I know there's big campaigns to unionise cleaners, support staff etc in big organisations (that are often quite unionised) like the civil service, NHS, law firms etc precisely because there's a sense that the existing unions in those sectors don't have the same interests as the poorest workers and aren't actually that interested in unionising them.

[viper37]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

[crazy canuck]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.