I work at a non profit and we just won union recognition and are slowly moving towards first contract negotiations and I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING. Would love to chat with some folks about their experiences, especially if you've negotiated around contracts/grants/etc.
How did the non-profit nature of your work affect your unionization push? I can see that making it much tougher because (presumably) workers see their work as intrinsically important, and genuinely bad things happen when it isn't done.
Unionizing is a good way to keep the work going. Otherwise people get laid off, burnt out, move out of the industry etc.
This is a huuuuge reason why we were able to get many people on board. Not to mention random retaliatory firings that were completely out of process
Fuck also to answer the point about "bad things happen when it isn't done": people absolutely are against striking due to ot disenfranchising our clients (we work with unhoused people). We really stressed that striking would be last resort and likely wouldn't happen. Crossing my fingers that's the case
I'd talk to nurses if you can, they often strike and deal with the same issue. People die during nurses' strikes.
One thing they do is give a month's warning, so that the hospital can find scab labor, knowing that the scabs will be much more expensive to employ
That's a really fucked up decision to have to make and I think that's hugely why everyone is very against striking. Also because our strike fund is like 200 dollars a week per employee lol. But I saw elsewhere in this thread that other unions can help with that too which could ease the fear of my coworkers
I'm gonna be frank: organizing for a strike starts now or it doesn't happen. Do not count on the reps to do it. If you're going to make friends with deep pockets, it's on you and no-one else to reach out.
If you're going to have the "start saving" conversation, do it now.
Don't forget about good work strikes.
Find a way to to keep doing the important part of the job while neglecting the components that serve to generate income. Stop tracking and reporting your numbers. Etc.
See that's the hard part, my department is largely funded by our contract so if we stop reporting then we lose the grant and then lose our jobs. So I know there are things we can do, we just need to get really creative. I think we are going to lean in to garnering more community support and being publicly vocal and ramp up that way. When I've thought about striking, I've thought about picketing by providing as many of the same services that we do already outside of our buildings
This is a weak point in your setup then, it is the same exploitation of nurses and other care workers. The culprit is the boss and company that doesn't agree to the conditions or broke agreements. They are responsible for a strike.
Would your boss work without pay? That is what people demand when they are angry at people striking. The effects of collective bargaining are to the benefit of the group you are working with.
I don't have any relevant experience so just thinking out loud here. Is some way to platform the voices of "clients" with pro-union sentiment to really drive though the point that the strike is ultimately for the benefit of the clients as much as for the workers and build solidarity on that axis?
Yes, creating a base of support in clients can be good. However companies in bad jurisdictions (
) sometimes retaliate against individuals for "breach of confidentiality". However if you are protected or are secure it can be an asset.
In the case of the Charité Bettenstreik (hospital bed strike) the nurses, doctors, hygienic personal etc. were attacked for abusing the poor sick people. Yet the strike contained quite important points for their Quality of Care and Quality of Life as well as that of the workers. The workers wanted to have at least a second person at night at each ward.
There are literally PhD thesis and research thesis about that and similar hospital strikes. The point is that people in care for and you are somewhat part of it are abused due to the good they do (christian "unions" are even saying why do you want money or good conditions if you do moral stuff and are getting a benefit after death?). The right media and often bosses will side against you if there are hot industrial action or collective bargaining situations. To have prepared some support with the stake holders and "customers" of your work is good, especially for people who don't want to hurt them, but after all if you win it will be better for the people you work with.
Talking to people about stuff that bosses will do during collective bargaining is called inoculation it is quite good and it helps to do organizing inside your work place on one hand and get experienced organizers/activists who also tell your activist allies how bosses will retaliate.
So your point is a very well made and very relevant one.
As others wrote structure tests are extremely important, see who is active and who is active when and willing to get involved. To know your true power (even if it is just distributing flyers, etc.) is quite important.
Oh you're right on the money with that presumption. The white saviourism runs deep in the non profit industrial complex. People think that we should sacrifice livable wages in order to serve the underserved, that we dont need to better pur wprking/living conditions because we do this put of the love and passion for the work. Which yeah, we do but god damn we deserve to pay rent comfortably for taking care of the highest risk populations when no one else wants to. Our particular situation was a lil complicated though. If you wanna read my novel here goes:
We have many different depts at our agency, and before us there were 2 depts that unionized together as one bargaining unit. Then came one other dept, and then mine and our sister department that unionized together. So in all we have 3 separate bargaining units which is silly but that's how it panned out. FYI if you're not familiar a bargaining unit is the employees that will be represented under one contract.
In my case, organizing between the two departments was challenging to me, but seemed comparatively easy to the fights that other organizers have had to deal with. We are kind of the least appreciated depts in the agency even though we handle the toughest work. We also qualify for some of the programs that our clients do, we make such little money. A couple people in my unit have second jobs. Our agency has also undergone extremely traumatic change; it used to be based upon consensus, worker autonomy, and have a lot of radical ethics. Of course, that's all crumbling and being "restructured" with more of a top down business model. That was a huge impetus to unionize, so it only took a couple of months to get people on board. My agency didn't recognize our union cards, so we went to an election and won 98 percent of the vote.
Now, we didn't try to unionize the entire rest of the agency because we knew it would be impossible to do. There are a lot of old guard who cling on to the white saviourism so hard. Along with refusing to recognize that there are many new bad actors making horrible, fucked up decisions, and refusing to believe that consensus is done for. Also there are folks benefitting from the restructure, and those, mostly Gen Xers, who are extremely antiunion and refuse to engage even though myself and others have spent months of researching tirelessly. In my union we still have 2 employees who refuse to talk about it and continue to spread misinformation across the agency like how we will have to pay $200 a month in union dues which is ridiculous.
So yeah overall I think unionizing is pretty taboo in.the non profit world. There are very few who do direct service with marginalized communities, there are more that are climate oriented and law non profits, so the idea is growing but its still got a long way to go.
If you're more interested in the origins of non profits, unions, and the break down of social safety nets in the US I found this paper to be super fascinating.
Congratulations again, and thank you for such a thorough reply and the paper, too.
Is your unit 100 people? If so at least you know exactly who is on side.
If it's less than 100 people, 1 of the 2 is full of shit I guess?
Lol I'm bad at math. It was more like 93-96 percent depending on how many employees we had at the time. We've had so much turnover we can't even keep track