It’s very possible to be in an overarching group. The Netherlands, for example, has two really huge union-federations. You can join them even when they don’t have a collective bargaining agreement for your profession. That means you still get legal aid in conflicts with your employer, for example.
Your workplace can choose to have a collective agreement or not. It doesn’t affect whether individual employees are unionised or not.
My first workplace did not have a kollektivavtal. Nothing in our contract said anything about negotiating salaries, meaning you might never see a salary increase (I didn’t for the three years I worked there, knew someone who worked there seven years and only saw it once), it basically just complied with Swedish worker laws.
I was in a union, because unions are still useful for e.g. personal development, career advice, legal help, etc. You can be self-employed and be in a union, unions can offer assistance and guidance for self-employed people too.
The argument I see against collective agreements here is that they’re “inflexible” and “not easy to apply to small companies” but I’ve yet to ever read a concrete example of this, so my personal belief is that it’s utter bunk. Like I mentioned elsewhere, there are times where not having one can sort of make sense; when you’re self-employed, and in a scenario where your contract covers all bases you want it to and you’re content not having a kollektivavtal. For example, if you have an incredible salary and you don’t ever care to negotiate about it (assuming there’s no clause in the contract about it)
If it’s a normal workplace, you should have a kollektivavtal. It’s common sense.
How are you in a union that doesn’t have a collective bargaining agreement? Like how does that even work?
It’s very possible to be in an overarching group. The Netherlands, for example, has two really huge union-federations. You can join them even when they don’t have a collective bargaining agreement for your profession. That means you still get legal aid in conflicts with your employer, for example.
Your workplace can choose to have a collective agreement or not. It doesn’t affect whether individual employees are unionised or not.
My first workplace did not have a kollektivavtal. Nothing in our contract said anything about negotiating salaries, meaning you might never see a salary increase (I didn’t for the three years I worked there, knew someone who worked there seven years and only saw it once), it basically just complied with Swedish worker laws.
I was in a union, because unions are still useful for e.g. personal development, career advice, legal help, etc. You can be self-employed and be in a union, unions can offer assistance and guidance for self-employed people too.
The argument I see against collective agreements here is that they’re “inflexible” and “not easy to apply to small companies” but I’ve yet to ever read a concrete example of this, so my personal belief is that it’s utter bunk. Like I mentioned elsewhere, there are times where not having one can sort of make sense; when you’re self-employed, and in a scenario where your contract covers all bases you want it to and you’re content not having a kollektivavtal. For example, if you have an incredible salary and you don’t ever care to negotiate about it (assuming there’s no clause in the contract about it)
If it’s a normal workplace, you should have a kollektivavtal. It’s common sense.