Not a huge surprise that unions would push for fewer drivers to be voting members - one tried and true union tactic is to negotiate with an employer to take money from non-powerful-union-members and give it to union members. That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance, layoffs where the union decides who gets laid off, and pension deals that are unavailable to new workers.
That's how you end up with pay by seniority rather than performance
Frankly this is the fault of the employer not the union.
Yes the union is the one _forcing_ the employer to enact such policies but _why_ does the union exist? Because the employer treated their employees unfairly.
Unions are a bandage on a gaping wound, yes you can say the bandage isn't doing the best job. But why do you have the gaping wound to start with?
Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag.
On the other hand, a union that's run by people depending on uber as a full time source of income has a significant interest in reducing the number of people driving for a "fling" or part time - more surge pricing, more guarantee minimum income from uber, less risk of low ratings leading to punitive action, since uber can't just replace them easily.
My point is that while unions benefit some workers, they don't benefit all workers. It's not a black and white situation.
> And it's also how you end up with weekends, benefits, worker protection, full-time employment and reasonable wages.
This will only apply to the top 10% of Union workers. The workers who came late (or the majority of Uber drivers) will receive less pay, have less power, work longer hours, and fewer benefits than the "senior" drivers. Do you really think unions will help everyone? They, just like everything else in this world, are designed to benefit the top.
Contrary to mistaken public opinion, union members are paid commensurate with their skills and seniority. It's foolish to require a company to pay all employees the same regardless of ability and unions make allowances for that in negotiations.
Can you give some examples of this? I'm most familiar with California's public employee unions, which are admittedly an extreme sample, but nearly every attempt to do performance measurement is fought tooth and nail.
> unions...push for fewer drivers to be voting members
Leaders are incentivised to minimise the number of key supporters they need to stay in power [1]. Having a large pool of potential supporters is a plus.
My understanding is that non-union employees are required to pay union dues since they still benefit from collective bargaining. Some states & contracts have an opt-out.
That's the theory, yes. But there are plenty of examples of unions throwing some of their members (typically part-time employees or those without seniority) under a bus in order to get benefits for the rest; if the members being thrown under a bus don't even get to vote, they're even more screwed.
I am wondering how a practice of an employer requiring non-union members to pay union dues would be legal. Doesn't this constitute a tax?
Edit: it looks like this practice is not legal in right-to-work states in the US. This article seems to explain "Union security agreements" pretty well if anyone is interested:
"we conducted meta-analyses on the relationships of job tenure with four types of job performance: core task performance, citizenship behavior, creativity and innovative behavior, and counterproductive work behavior"
Paywalled.
However, the abstract ("citizenship behavior" / "creativity"... meaning what exactly?) hints that the measures are largely subjective and somewhat bullshitty.
"Results indicate that for all levels of job experience and for both low- and high-complexity jobs, the correlation between job experience and job performance is positive. "
