1. 44
  1.  

  2. 11

    Great victory and hopefully the first of many.

    1. 3

      This is a good precedent. Yes!

      1. 2

        Does that mean everybody who works there now has to join or quit? If not, what exactly is the vote for? Article assumes a familiarity with the details of US labour laws I don’t have.

        1. 10

          The vote allows the union to operate under the regulatory framework for unions, which gives it rights/protections that ordinary groups of employees do not have.

          1. 8

            In the US this depends on the state. States with so called ‘Right to Work’ laws do not require everyone to join the union, but the union still represents all eligible employees in the negotiation.

            1. 3

              Wow, interesting - it would never have occured to me that closed shops were legal in America.

              1. 10

                “Closed shops” – workplaces where it’s forbidden to hire non-union members – are generally illegal in the US.

                “Right to work” laws are misleadingly named. Since the work force may be a mix of members and non-members, there’s a potential free-rider problem where someone gets the benefits the union negotiated, but doesn’t pay dues to the union to support the union’s work. In some states it’s legal to have an “agency shop” or other similar arrangement, where employees are not required to join the union, but an employee who does not join the union still pays some type of “agency fee” or “fair share fee” to eliminate the free-ride problem.

                A “right to work” law is about outlawing that arrangement, and generally is meant to hurt or weaken the union by allowing employees to get the union’s benefits without paying its costs.

                1. 2

                  Thanks for the explanation. I was curious about the legal status of the “agency shop” model here in the UK, and I happen to know an expert on employment law and they told me this is also illegal here and would be considered a closed shop.

                  1. 2

                    That is interesting. Is the right to negotiate collectively automatically part of collective representation? In Germany, a “unionised company” doesn’t really exist, it generally has a formalised employee representation with rights (e.g. block certain decisions), but not necessarily collectively negotiate. This is depending on company size, at larger companies, they can e.g. block firings or disagreeing about firing with cause. “The union” is not the representation, though, so in larger companies, there’s proper political union blocks within this committee. No one forces the company to use this committee to negotiate wages with, though.

                    It is generally the employers right to decide to collectively negotiate wages or not and pick the partner for that. It even goes as far as employers forming associations that negotiate with larger unions, spanning many companies. There’s also the setup where a group within the company is part of the union and another not and collective negotiation only happen with the former. Employers often decide to extend the negotiations to non-unionised people, it’s more efficient. Yes, there’s a free-rider problem, but those people also have not representation at the table, then.

                    In some areas of business, the collective negotiation model of Germany is even seen as a competitive advantage, as it removes a lot of bandwidth need from HR.

            2. 0

              Dear lord, I hope this isn’t a trend. I for one don’t want to be part of a tech union ever! My worst fear is some sort of software engineering union taking hold.

              “I feel like the most important issues [for us] are around creating clearer policies and support for reporting workplace issues and creating clearer mechanisms for hiring and firing employees,”

              You don’t need a union for things like this to be handled correctly, you just need a competent HR department and clearly listed processes for reporting issues. As for hiring and firing employees, have a look at the teachers union and see how well thats going. Tenured teachers putting in the bare minimum knowing full well that they’re virtually immune to losing their job.

              But in 2018, a heated disagreement broke out between employees and management about whether to leave a project called “Always Punch Nazis” on the platform, according to reporting in Slate. When Breitbart said the project violated Kickstarter’s terms of service by inciting violence, management initially planned to remove the project, but then reversed its decision after protest from employees.

              So Kickstarter management caved to far left whiny millennials and decided to endorse threats of physical violence. We all know nazis are bad, but a campaign raising money to “Always Punch Nazis” is inflammatory and contributes to the divide in American society right now.

              around issues like sexual harassment, ICE contracts, and carbon emissions

              So a government contract with an immigration agency is grounds for unionization and public outcry, but threats of physical violence are ok?

              Maybe I’m guilty of buying into Vice “quality” journalism on this one, but this article panders to outrage and cancel culture.

              1. 4

                I for one don’t want to be part of a tech union ever!

                You know you don’t have to join, right? Nobody can make you.

                don’t need a union for things like this to be handled correctly, you just need a competent HR department and clearly listed processes for reporting issues

                How do you get the company to have those, if not by workers demanding them from management?

                have a look at the teachers union

                The teachers union is definitely a contender for ‘worst union’. Tenured teachers putting in the bare minimum is the least of the problem - they’ve generated tremendous precarity for the rest of the teachers, since anything which might resemble stability is no longer on offer because they might claim they’re due tenure.