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?

This is what I’m reading:

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.

  • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Nederlands
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    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.

    • Slatlun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Nederlands
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        Do it during an especially busy week, and make sure the boss can’t hire temporary workers.