Why doesn't the US military unionize? They have low re-enlistment rates, and all the things that unions were originally conceived to combat: 1) Low Pay 2) Dangerous Conditions 3) Erratic Scheduling.
Most soldiers with grievances just grumble to themselves without results. If they had an organization to channel grievances by lobbying the Defence Dept., Congress, etc... they could negotiate contracts for better pay and working conditions. We all remember the recent news reports of soldiers in Iraq without proper body armor.
You say, "Well, what about national security? What if they strike and we get attacked?" But municipal police and firemen are footsoldiers in the 'war on terror,' and they have unions.
From Denmark: "All permanent employees of the Danish armed forces are free to join any union - military or civilian. However, according to an overall agreement for all civil servants, only one union holds the right to represent a particular group of personnel and sign agreements for this group...
"At this moment three unions are representing active military personnel: one union for officers, one union representing enlisted privates in the Navy and the Air Force and NCOs of all three services, and one union representing enlisted privates in the Army..."
― andy, Wednesday, 10 March 2004 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)
I imagine it has something to do with national security issues. If some army decided to invade and there was a strike during wage negotiations I don't think that'd be very good for the country. Not to mention the Armed Forces are all about discipline and following orders, unionizing to "negotiate" with your commanders isn't gonna be encouraged in such an institution. Not to say that it's not in their best interest to unionize, i'm just not sure if it's allowed.
― D Aziz (esquire1983), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94: Mutiny or Sedition.
A member who, with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his or her duty or creates any violence or disturbance, is guilty of mutiny. A person who, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority, is guilty of sedition. Furthermore, a member who fails to do his or her utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his or her presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his or her superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he or she knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition. Violations of this article can be punished by death.
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 11 March 2004 00:15 (twenty-two years ago)