586
submitted 1 year ago by cyu@sh.itjust.works to c/unions@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, not having a union can lead to more abuse.

However having a mandatory union can lead to abuse too. Because it gives all the power to the union. You never want to give all the power to one entity. This basically creates a workplace mafia.

What you want in the workspace is to have several unions that can work together (or not). The more unions, the better (because it's easy to divide two unions, but harder to split seven).

Those unions ought to federate workers from widely different industries, so that they can carry the weight of many voices technically and politically.

Ideally, there ought to be some kind of legal infrastructure for the corporations and the unions and representative bodies of the workforce to periodically meet and update their generic contract.

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, thats true, you want a union for each craft, who can understand and work for the benifit of those people. One union per company isn't too hot.

Given the most ideal situation tho, were the proper union distribution is in place, should union dues be mandatory? Thats the question at the heart of "right to work".

the unions and representative bodies of the workforce

I'm puzzled by this, tho. Whats a representative body of the workforce?

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
586 points (97.3% liked)

unions

1656 readers
75 users here now

a community focused on union news, info, discussion, etc

Friends:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS