I hear a lot of misconceptions, seemingly based in stereotypes about what unions are for and who they serve
Unfortunately, through my own experience being in one & observing other unions, they often end up serving the organization of the union itself. They may still work for the workers, but also end up making decisions that are better for the union than for the workers.
Right now, my kids are learning remotely. However, the school district has encouraged teachers themselves to still report to their classroom to teach from there because seeing that environment lends at least a little bit more normalcy to the experience. You might agree or disagree, but the teachers have the choice. However, teachers are being told & subtly bullied by the union into not doing this for some vague justification that it weakens the union. At least one member I know of has said they're teaching like this, but they hope the union doesn't find out because they would "get in trouble".
I think unions can be a good & important tool in equalizing the power imbalance between an individual worker and their larger employers. Unfortunately, those who seek & rise to position of authority within the union structure are often those who end up seeing the union are a "good" unto itself rather than serving the members & their wishes.
This isn't a power trip by union leadership/ "the organization of the union itself" though?
It's a real concern
about the safety and working conditions, and how a lack of a unified front can lead to fissures when negotiating that could actually hurt a majority of union members.
The unions members probably mostly prefer work from home due to safety concerns. Should the school district wish to demand all teachers report to the building, the negotiation position of the union is significantly weakened if the administration can say "well 25% of your membership is already in the building" as a justification for denying hazard pay, further health and safety precautions, etc.
The schools are sanitized nightly and those who go in literally don't have to see anyone else, and by policy are not supposed to.
"Unified front" That is not the purpose of the union. The union exists to serve it's members. If serving it's members might be slightly more difficult if it actually accommodates the choices of the members it serves, well that's it's job. It's job is not to make it's job easier, it's to serve the members. If the district tries to pressure other members because some make a certain choice, or not provide a safe working environment, That is the fight the union should fight. Not bullying members against making the choice the members feels is the right one to best serve the students.
The possibility of adversarial action by the school district is insufficient to justify the union's actions, especially when, in the case of my school district, the district has otherwise been very responsive to the concerns of the union with respect to health & safety protocols.
Is the union preventing teachers from going into the school? Is it not OK for the union to have a position on the matter and communicate it to their members?
Why is it ok for the administration to say "we prefer but don't require you to come in" but not ok for the union to say "actually, we prefer but don't require you to stay home"?
A unified front is EXACTLY the purpose of a union. The threat of collective action by the entire workforce is what unions derive their power from.
> not ok for the union to say "actually, we prefer but don't require you to stay home"?
If I prefer to work from the building, and the union is pressuring[1] me to stay home, that tells me the union is not working for me.
If the union were working for me, it might demand that work from home be allowed for those who prefer or need it, and that work from the building be done in safe conditions.
This is my problem with unions; it's fine if you fit with the majority, but if you don't you're paying a portion of your salary to prop up an organization between you and your employer that's actively pushing for things you don't want. It's just a different windmill to tilt at.
[1] When the union expresses a preference, and people are worried about the union hearing that they didn't follow the preference, that's pressure.
I don't understand how you can claim that a unified front is their purposes. Their purpose is to serve their workers. Forcing all workers to behave the same way seems a poor interpretation of that duty.
Otherwise, sure it's fine to have a position on an issue and communicate it to members. What is not fine is to imply to members that if they make their own choice then the union will never support them should they have a problem, even for an unrelated issue, essentially stripping them of union support. This is what I meant by bullying, and have myself witnessed.
But if you insist that a unified front, rather than supporting workers, is their purpose then we fundamentally disagree, and I'll leave things by pointing out that the "unified front" can be to support worker choice & flexibility.
Their purpose is multifaceted, but without a (mostly) unified front on matters they wish to bargain around, their ability to best serve their members during bargaining is compromised.
Threats of withholding union protection for making an informed choice would be shocking (and likely illegal!).
I don't pretend to know what you've seen and heard, but in most cases where "threats" were made, my bet would be that a statement like "if you want the union to be around to help protect you, listening to our guidance is the best course", was interpreted as a threat (singular specific you), rather than a general statement on the importance of how vital solidarity is for the survival of the union and its collective bargaining power(general/plural you).
Shocking, but not uncommon in my anecdotal experience. Of course it might not be universal. In my experience it went as follows:
Union members automatically pay dues. They have the option of paying more dues. Someone who paid the automatic dues went to the union for help. Each time, they were urged to opt in to paying more dues. They chose not to, and were left waiting for help. When they finally chose to increase their dues, the help suddenly materialized.
And sure, most speech surrounding the bullying isn't direct. Would you expect it to be explicit? That simply isn't how any remotely intelligent person makes illegal threats. But it's pretty easy to pick up on the tone of "hey it's a nice job you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it"
I support unions, I think they provide a net benefit to workers, but power structures frequently attract people more interested in wielding the power than in the purpose that power is suppose to serve. I see too much of a tendency in supporters of unions to overlook this fact, with any criticism dismissed as "you don't support the workers!". (Note: I'm not accusing you of that. We appear to be having a reasonable discussion)
> And sure, most speech surrounding the bullying isn't direct.
Having been in two unions in a prior life, I'd say the only reason this is true is due to lack of in-person communication. Anything documentable will be kept to semi-acceptable levels. The true (daily) abuse comes when they return to the classroom. These folks need to prepare for some bullying.
Most teachers defying the union on this will not make it more than another year in that district once classrooms return would be my uninformed bet. It will be a mission of every other union member at each school to make their everyday existence a living hell.
Yes, I have very poor taste in my mouth when it comes to my experiences with unions. I certainly recognize what they've accomplished and could still accomplish; but until they stop existing as corrupt rackets to protect the lowest common denominator employee they are going to be a hard sell to much of the US who has dealt with such creatures.
of course, just like how when the mob says "if you want our guys to be around to help protect you, listening to our guidance is the best course" it's not a threat but a general statement on the importance of community solidarity or how when trump says "if you want our tax dollars and support for your state, finding those extra votes is the best course" it's not a threat but a general statement on the financial realities of federal spending
Having teachers drive to work to talk in front of a webcam is an obviously unnecessary move and a waste of time. They don't need a vague justification, it's pretty evident why this is a non-starter.
Labor laws and collective bargaining are two very complicated topics. Perhaps the union gave the teacher you talked to a perfectly rational explanation but it came out as "vague justification" to them because they didn't understand it? I think that is more plausible than the union demanding teachers to work-from-home for no good reason.
Unfortunately, through my own experience being in one & observing other unions, they often end up serving the organization of the union itself. They may still work for the workers, but also end up making decisions that are better for the union than for the workers.
Right now, my kids are learning remotely. However, the school district has encouraged teachers themselves to still report to their classroom to teach from there because seeing that environment lends at least a little bit more normalcy to the experience. You might agree or disagree, but the teachers have the choice. However, teachers are being told & subtly bullied by the union into not doing this for some vague justification that it weakens the union. At least one member I know of has said they're teaching like this, but they hope the union doesn't find out because they would "get in trouble".
I think unions can be a good & important tool in equalizing the power imbalance between an individual worker and their larger employers. Unfortunately, those who seek & rise to position of authority within the union structure are often those who end up seeing the union are a "good" unto itself rather than serving the members & their wishes.