unions are trying to use the threat of a strike to increase worker wages so that fewer workers need to scrape by. We should have union loans that pay union dues until the wages are increased (by union activity), and then use part of the increased wages to pay off the loan.
no, I think a strike fund is different, a strike fund is like a collective savings account for union members to save up for a strike, while my idea prevents workers interested in unions but not interested in union dues from needing to pay union dues until after their wages are increased.
Yeah, but that starts to walk right up to the ‘right to work’ line, give me the benefits of a union shop without the responsibilities like voting, dues, or solidarity of action until later. If a union is in place you already have benefits of it most likely by having a guaranteed raise schedule or higher starting wages than you otherwise would. If it’s just being established you’ll have a vote, and if it gets established against your vote then that’s just the way it is and you either join or leave.
The dues are integral towards the operation by funding things like a strike fund, hiring negotiators, or any other operational costs.
Think the other side of it, you get hired and floated a ‘loan’ until some later point. In the interim a strike is called. Are you going to walk out and expect pay from the union from a fund you haven’t paid into?
well yeah kinda. What I mean is that means testing employees trying to unionize by requesting union dues before joining is a great way to to segregate the workforce between the wealthy (those who can afford union dues) and the poor (those who can’t afford union dues). At the extreme, it’s like an elite club of the highest-earning employees and the employees who work a sidegig. There should be union financial aid available for those whose expenses and budget can’t afford to join a union until after they get a raise.
unions are trying to use the threat of a strike to increase worker wages so that fewer workers need to scrape by. We should have union loans that pay union dues until the wages are increased (by union activity), and then use part of the increased wages to pay off the loan.
That’s pretty well what a strike fund does. Dues get paid in, and paid out if a strike happens.
no, I think a strike fund is different, a strike fund is like a collective savings account for union members to save up for a strike, while my idea prevents workers interested in unions but not interested in union dues from needing to pay union dues until after their wages are increased.
Yeah, but that starts to walk right up to the ‘right to work’ line, give me the benefits of a union shop without the responsibilities like voting, dues, or solidarity of action until later. If a union is in place you already have benefits of it most likely by having a guaranteed raise schedule or higher starting wages than you otherwise would. If it’s just being established you’ll have a vote, and if it gets established against your vote then that’s just the way it is and you either join or leave.
The dues are integral towards the operation by funding things like a strike fund, hiring negotiators, or any other operational costs.
Think the other side of it, you get hired and floated a ‘loan’ until some later point. In the interim a strike is called. Are you going to walk out and expect pay from the union from a fund you haven’t paid into?
well yeah kinda. What I mean is that means testing employees trying to unionize by requesting union dues before joining is a great way to to segregate the workforce between the wealthy (those who can afford union dues) and the poor (those who can’t afford union dues). At the extreme, it’s like an elite club of the highest-earning employees and the employees who work a sidegig. There should be union financial aid available for those whose expenses and budget can’t afford to join a union until after they get a raise.