I’m hoping someone with knowledge of collective agreements and unions can help me understand why union members would agree to 2 weeks vacation. Doesn’t a union hold more power for negotiation?
More than 1 year of continuous employment -> 2 weeks
From what I can tell this is less than most regular employers (maybe food industry is like that though).
I’m looking at forming a collective agreement at my workplace but seeing this result is discouraging.
This isn’t true. The workers of the union can get paid during their strikes by the union through the worker’s contributions.
The more members and money the union has, while remaining decentralised and its leaders directly accountable — the more power the union has.
This is absolutely true for a lot of people. A salary isn’t guaranteed just because you’re in a union, and it is often a lesser salary on strike to preserve funds. I think this person was asking about starting a union too, so there would be no fund set up unless they joined into a larger union.
I mean, you gotta start somewhere. If you have 10 people in a union, and work for about one year, you should be able to spare enough together for a few weeks of striking, provided that you lot put the contributions high enough. If the median salary of those 10 is about €40k, and took about 1/3 of salary for unions, you’d have €10k, enough to pay everyone
If those 10 work three years, they can get enough for one month of striking. Now, it might seem like a lot to contribute to, but one month of no work being done might put a business out of commission quickly unless if they pay up.
Demand higher and many more things than you actually want. Demand eg. a salary increase of 50%. Demand that the boss earn only 10% more than the highest earning workers. And so on. The boss will refuse all of the things, but be probably amenable to some of the aspects. Negotiate until he no longer caves in.
Do it during an especially busy week, and make sure the boss can’t hire temporary workers.