Technically it does have collective agreements just not with the company I work for.
A union, at least in Sweden, isn’t tied to a place of work so me working somewhere they don’t have a collective agreement isn’t that odd. Now it does mean I don’t get as much out of my membership but I still do gain some things. Like if my employer screws me over the union is there to help me and fight for me in court if need be. There are also some extra protections like if there is a layoff the company will need to negotiate and justify why I, or anyone else in my union, should be the one to loose their job.
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?
Technically it does have collective agreements just not with the company I work for.
A union, at least in Sweden, isn’t tied to a place of work so me working somewhere they don’t have a collective agreement isn’t that odd. Now it does mean I don’t get as much out of my membership but I still do gain some things. Like if my employer screws me over the union is there to help me and fight for me in court if need be. There are also some extra protections like if there is a layoff the company will need to negotiate and justify why I, or anyone else in my union, should be the one to loose their job.
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.