Technically, yes, on paper, they do expire, gets cancelled and renewed every 2-3 years.
In practice, no. They can’t not be renewed. If the employees don’t accept the agreement there will be a strike, and if the employers don’t accept the agreement they can make a lock-out. If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt, the government can sign a law to require the work to resume on previous terms.
The individual employer has no more say in the negotiations than an individual employee. The negotiations happen between the employer union and the employee union.
Keep in mind that some companies actually want to have a union agreement.
It’s really only the most unprofessionally run and privately owned companies who believe they can somehow save money from not having a proper agreement with their employees.
Professionel companies focus on making money instead of wasting resources fighting their own employees.
If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt
Hold up, what if the strike leads nowhere and society doesn’t grind to a halt? Because the strike is ineffective, because the union lost most of it’s members because of pay incentives to leave the union?
I believe you missed the part about how the employers negotiate. They don’t. Their union does.
A single employer can pay all the money it wants to its own employees to make them quit the union, but the employer is still bound by the agreement that is made on their behalf by all the other companies in the same employer union.
They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors.
Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees. It’s not uncommon for businesses to pay more or give better terms than the union agreement describes. That is their edge against their competitors.
The only businesses interested in “escaping” the minimum pay are the unsuccesful bottom feeders.
They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors.
That “never” is a pretty big claim. You could just as easily argue that since workers are competing against each other for the same jobs, they would “never” form together into unions, or choose to go on strike in solidarity with others instead of scabbing for an individual pay raise. Class consciousness works both ways, just as workers can benefit more from working together with each other, so too can companies. This is especially true in cases of monopolization (or near-monopolozation), when there are only a handful of companies that would have to coordinate.
Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees.
Wages are not just determined by the value a worker contributes to the company but also by the power that the company and the workers hold relative to each other. If this were not the case, then there’s be no reason to have unions at all.
Even if the most skilled/desired candidates are able to shop around, there will also always be less skilled/desired candidates who don’t have the same individual bargaining power.
The idea that you’re suggesting is called union busting. It only works in USA and very few sectors in Europe where sector agreements are not mandatory by law.
I’d argue that it also doesn’t work in USA, since the companies end up spending more money on avoiding an agreement than what they’d save on salaries. They also waste a lot of time and resources on the individual bargaining, which provides no value for neither the company or the employee.
If the employers pay people more to not join a union, the union might even say: “Mission achieved without a fight. See ya’ll next time inflation catches up.”
It only works in USA and very few sectors in Europe where sector agreements are not mandatory by law.
I’d argue that it also doesn’t work in USA, since the companies end up spending more money on avoiding an agreement than what they’d save on salaries. They also waste a lot of time and resources on the individual bargaining, which provides no value for neither the company or the employee.
This is very silly and idealistic. Just because it’s underhanded doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Take a company like Amazon, it has a massive number of employees all across the country, who are not unionized. If employees at one location do attempt to form a union, the company isn’t just looking at the immediate, short term cost-benefit of letting it happen vs busting it (even to the point of potentially closing down the location entirely), they’re also looking at the potential precedent that it would set, the proof of concept. If they allow one location to unionize, they all might unionize - as A Bug’s Life explains, “It’s about keeping those ants in line.”
It absolutely works in the US which is why they do it. Europe has historically had more organized and more class conscious workers, compared to the US with all our “temporarily embarrassed billionaires.” I get that it may sound nice to say that employers reap what they sow, that if they bust unions they will naturally face the consequences of their actions - but unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. Historically, many people got rich off of slavery, colonialism, and blatant, horrific exploitation, far worse than the conditions we have today, they lived and died for generations in wealth and prosperity. Why then, is it so hard to imagine that people who bust unions and underpay their employees could profit from it today?
If the employers pay people more to not join a union, the union might even say: “Mission achieved without a fight. See ya’ll next time inflation catches up.”
This is so dangerously naive and idealistic. You’re talking about giving up worker power because you trust market forces to come back around to our benefit. You’re completely ignoring the life-or-death nature of the power struggle between the classes. Any union that has any power to stop such an arrangement should come out in full force to stop it from happening, and if they’re powerless to stop it, then they should be desperately looking at how to change things to strengthen their position. It’s absolutely insane to try to say that it would be a “win” for the union, to the point that frankly I have to question your motives for saying it. Letting the company but off union members out of the union would destroy or significantly weaken the union, and the union is the only thing checking the power of the company, and if that balance of power shifts far enough, it may be impossible or extremely difficult for the union to recover.
Technically, yes, on paper, they do expire, gets cancelled and renewed every 2-3 years.
In practice, no. They can’t not be renewed. If the employees don’t accept the agreement there will be a strike, and if the employers don’t accept the agreement they can make a lock-out. If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt, the government can sign a law to require the work to resume on previous terms.
The individual employer has no more say in the negotiations than an individual employee. The negotiations happen between the employer union and the employee union.
Keep in mind that some companies actually want to have a union agreement. It’s really only the most unprofessionally run and privately owned companies who believe they can somehow save money from not having a proper agreement with their employees.
Professionel companies focus on making money instead of wasting resources fighting their own employees.
Hold up, what if the strike leads nowhere and society doesn’t grind to a halt? Because the strike is ineffective, because the union lost most of it’s members because of pay incentives to leave the union?
I believe you missed the part about how the employers negotiate. They don’t. Their union does. A single employer can pay all the money it wants to its own employees to make them quit the union, but the employer is still bound by the agreement that is made on their behalf by all the other companies in the same employer union. They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors. Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees. It’s not uncommon for businesses to pay more or give better terms than the union agreement describes. That is their edge against their competitors. The only businesses interested in “escaping” the minimum pay are the unsuccesful bottom feeders.
That “never” is a pretty big claim. You could just as easily argue that since workers are competing against each other for the same jobs, they would “never” form together into unions, or choose to go on strike in solidarity with others instead of scabbing for an individual pay raise. Class consciousness works both ways, just as workers can benefit more from working together with each other, so too can companies. This is especially true in cases of monopolization (or near-monopolozation), when there are only a handful of companies that would have to coordinate.
Wages are not just determined by the value a worker contributes to the company but also by the power that the company and the workers hold relative to each other. If this were not the case, then there’s be no reason to have unions at all.
Even if the most skilled/desired candidates are able to shop around, there will also always be less skilled/desired candidates who don’t have the same individual bargaining power.
The idea that you’re suggesting is called union busting. It only works in USA and very few sectors in Europe where sector agreements are not mandatory by law.
I’d argue that it also doesn’t work in USA, since the companies end up spending more money on avoiding an agreement than what they’d save on salaries. They also waste a lot of time and resources on the individual bargaining, which provides no value for neither the company or the employee.
If the employers pay people more to not join a union, the union might even say: “Mission achieved without a fight. See ya’ll next time inflation catches up.”
This is very silly and idealistic. Just because it’s underhanded doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Take a company like Amazon, it has a massive number of employees all across the country, who are not unionized. If employees at one location do attempt to form a union, the company isn’t just looking at the immediate, short term cost-benefit of letting it happen vs busting it (even to the point of potentially closing down the location entirely), they’re also looking at the potential precedent that it would set, the proof of concept. If they allow one location to unionize, they all might unionize - as A Bug’s Life explains, “It’s about keeping those ants in line.”
It absolutely works in the US which is why they do it. Europe has historically had more organized and more class conscious workers, compared to the US with all our “temporarily embarrassed billionaires.” I get that it may sound nice to say that employers reap what they sow, that if they bust unions they will naturally face the consequences of their actions - but unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. Historically, many people got rich off of slavery, colonialism, and blatant, horrific exploitation, far worse than the conditions we have today, they lived and died for generations in wealth and prosperity. Why then, is it so hard to imagine that people who bust unions and underpay their employees could profit from it today?
This is so dangerously naive and idealistic. You’re talking about giving up worker power because you trust market forces to come back around to our benefit. You’re completely ignoring the life-or-death nature of the power struggle between the classes. Any union that has any power to stop such an arrangement should come out in full force to stop it from happening, and if they’re powerless to stop it, then they should be desperately looking at how to change things to strengthen their position. It’s absolutely insane to try to say that it would be a “win” for the union, to the point that frankly I have to question your motives for saying it. Letting the company but off union members out of the union would destroy or significantly weaken the union, and the union is the only thing checking the power of the company, and if that balance of power shifts far enough, it may be impossible or extremely difficult for the union to recover.