Read on Twitter
The most interesting thing about this is that Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) is a minority union.
Minority and members-only unions are the way unions work in most OECD countries, but for historical reasons, they're almost unheard-of in the USA. https://twitter.com/AlphabetWorkers/status/1346050124544233473
Minority and members-only unions are the way unions work in most OECD countries, but for historical reasons, they're almost unheard-of in the USA. https://twitter.com/AlphabetWorkers/status/1346050124544233473
It's difficult to understand the difference in labor relations in the US compared to Europe without also understanding that US labor unions are ~exclusively majority unions, and European unions are typically voluntary, members-only unions.
What is a majority union?
A union defines a group of people - say, "all software engineers at FooCorp" - as the "bargaining unit".
If 50% + 1 of software engineers at FooCorp vote to unionize, 100% will be represented by the union (not just those who voted for it).
A union defines a group of people - say, "all software engineers at FooCorp" - as the "bargaining unit".
If 50% + 1 of software engineers at FooCorp vote to unionize, 100% will be represented by the union (not just those who voted for it).
This representation is essentially permanent; it is very difficult to deauthorize a union in practice, and there is no requirement to repeat the vote to ensure that a majority of the bargaining unit continues to support unionization.
The upside of exclusive representation is that unions can stretch their power by acting on behalf of much larger blocs.
The downside is that every person is compelled to be represented by one union, even if they would prefer a different union (or no representation at all).
The downside is that every person is compelled to be represented by one union, even if they would prefer a different union (or no representation at all).
If you talk to people in Europe, this system sounds absolutely BONKERS to them, because European workers typically choose representation!
Just because two people have the same title at the same company doesn't mean one can't be represented by Union A and the other by Union B.
Just because two people have the same title at the same company doesn't mean one can't be represented by Union A and the other by Union B.
Note: AWU describes itself as a "minority union", "non-contract union", or "solidarity union".
For the purposes of what I'm talking about, these terms are all equivalent and interchangeable with "members-only union".
For the purposes of what I'm talking about, these terms are all equivalent and interchangeable with "members-only union".
Why are almost all unions in the US majority unions?
A combination of reasons. For starters, the NLRA (1935) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) provide strong legal rights to majority unions that aren't given to members-only unions.
A combination of reasons. For starters, the NLRA (1935) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) provide strong legal rights to majority unions that aren't given to members-only unions.
The NLRA protects a lot of workplace activity, whether or not it happens through a certified union.
Protected concerted activity is protected, whether or not a union election has taken place.
Protected concerted activity is protected, whether or not a union election has taken place.
The term "majority union" is itself a bit misleading.
If a union has earned certification, it is the *exclusive* representative of everyone in the bargaining unit (again, whether or not the member wishes to be represented).
If a union has earned certification, it is the *exclusive* representative of everyone in the bargaining unit (again, whether or not the member wishes to be represented).
Employers in the US are not required to negotiate contracts with members-only unions, but they are compelled to negotiate contracts with exclusive unions.
That's a strong incentive for labor syndicates like the AFL-CIO to seek exclusive representation and ignore minority unions.
That's a strong incentive for labor syndicates like the AFL-CIO to seek exclusive representation and ignore minority unions.
If you ask most people in the US what a union does, they'll say things like "negotiate compensation and benefits" or "secure a contract for its members".
But, negotiating contracts is only one possible role that a union could form.
But, negotiating contracts is only one possible role that a union could form.
Unfortunately, syndicates (e.g. AFL-CIO/Teamsters/UAW) have focused their efforts on contract unions.
Historically, they've actually been pretty averse to members-only unions (like AWU).
Historically, they've actually been pretty averse to members-only unions (like AWU).
As a result, American workplaces that are unionized are typically 100% unionized, but those unionized workplaces are a tiny fraction of the US workforce (6%).
You can look at this as an "all or nothing" policy - ie, "if we can't win exclusive representation (100%, with the support of 50%+1), we won't seek any".
This is a good way to maximize local power, but it's a bad way to maximize national power in the long term.
This is a good way to maximize local power, but it's a bad way to maximize national power in the long term.
Arguably, the Janus v. AFSCME SCOTUS ruling could change this.
The Janus ruling only affects public unions, but the writing is on the wall: labor unions can expect conservative courts to continue to chip away at the powers of exclusive (majority) unions.
The Janus ruling only affects public unions, but the writing is on the wall: labor unions can expect conservative courts to continue to chip away at the powers of exclusive (majority) unions.
The Janus ruling is bad news for exclusive (majority) unions, but it's actually not much of an issue for minority/members-only unions.
By definition, members-only unions only represent the people who choose to be represented by the union.
By definition, members-only unions only represent the people who choose to be represented by the union.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised that AWU, a minority union, is recognized by an AFL-CIO affiliate (CWA), because the AFL-CIO has spent decades insisting on exclusive representation.
Obviously, there are strategic arguments to be made here: Alphabet/Google is a massive company in an industry that has virtually no union representation, so from the AFL-CIO's perspective, there's a more compelling reason for making an exception in the AWU's case.
