A decision to withhold labor through a strike presents a profound conflict for every union member. While the collective action aims to improve working conditions for all, individual employees must weigh the benefits of solidarity against the personal risks of lost wages and professional disruption. Choosing to cross a picket line and continue working introduces a unique set of complications stemming from both the union’s internal rules and the employer’s operational decisions.
The Obligation of Union Membership During a Strike
The expectation that an employee will participate in a strike is rooted in the principles of collective bargaining and the internal governance of the labor organization. Full union membership typically requires adherence to the union’s constitution and bylaws, which often mandate support for majority decisions, including a formal strike vote. This obligation is not imposed by federal labor law but is a contractual agreement between the member and the organization.
The relationship differs substantially for employees who are not full members but are still covered by the negotiated contract, sometimes referred to as agency fee payers. These non-members are legally bound to pay a portion of dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining and contract administration. They are generally not subject to the same internal disciplinary rules or strike obligations that apply to full, voluntarily signed members.
Consequences Imposed by the Union
The power of a union to impose discipline for failing to strike is limited exclusively to individuals who maintain full union membership. This disciplinary authority is upheld in labor law, recognizing the union’s legitimate interest in maintaining solidarity during a work stoppage. Once an employee legally resigns from the union, however, the organization loses its ability to impose penalties for any subsequent actions, including crossing the picket line.
Internal Disciplinary Action
Failure to participate in an authorized strike is considered an act of disloyalty or a breach of the membership oath. The union’s disciplinary process often resembles an internal trial, starting with the filing of formal charges against the non-striking member. These charges are then heard by an internal disciplinary committee or the executive board, where the accused member has the right to present a defense. If the committee finds the charges substantiated, the union can levy various penalties, and the procedural fairness of this internal hearing is subject to review under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), ensuring members receive due process.
Financial Penalties
The most common form of union discipline is the imposition of a fine or assessment on the non-striking member. These financial penalties are intended to recoup the costs associated with the strike or punish the member for undermining the collective action. The amount of the fine is usually specified in the union’s bylaws, often calculated based on the wages earned during the strike period. These fines can be substantial, and the union may pursue collection through state court civil actions against full members who did not formally resign.
Loss of Membership Privileges
A non-striking member may also face the suspension or termination of their membership privileges. This can involve the loss of the right to vote in future union elections, referendums, or contract ratification votes, limiting the individual’s voice within the organization. The union may also restrict access to certain membership benefits, such as union-sponsored insurance plans or job referral services. While the individual remains covered by the collective bargaining agreement, the loss of these internal privileges diminishes the value of remaining affiliated.
Employer Actions Regarding Non-Striking Workers
An employer’s response to employees who cross the picket line is heavily dependent on the legal nature of the work stoppage. Federal labor law distinguishes between an economic strike, which is focused on securing better wages or benefits, and an unfair labor practice (ULP) strike, which is initiated in response to the employer’s illegal conduct. This distinction dictates the job security of both strikers and non-strikers.
Economic Strikes
In an economic strike, the employer has the right to permanently replace striking employees to maintain business operations. If the strike is successful, the employer is generally not required to fire the permanent replacements to make room for the returning strikers. The non-striker who continued working maintains their position, but their long-term job security is tied to the overall success of the strike and the stability of the company afterward.
Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Strikes
The situation is different during a ULP strike, which is initiated in response to the employer’s illegal conduct. If the strike is classified as a ULP action, the employer cannot legally hire permanent replacements. Upon the unconditional offer to return to work, all strikers are entitled to immediate reinstatement to their former positions. The non-striker’s job is secure in this scenario, as the employer cannot use the strike as a pretext for termination.
Workplace Changes and Job Security
Regardless of the strike type, the employer is legally prohibited from discriminating against or harassing any employee based on their choice to strike or not to strike. However, the non-striker may find that their work assignments or the atmosphere of their workplace have substantially changed. If the employer successfully operates with temporary staff or permanent replacements, the non-striker may face a future where the company has a reduced need for the original workforce, potentially leading to layoffs after the labor dispute concludes.
Legal Rights and Protections for Non-Strikers
Employees covered by a union contract possess specific legal mechanisms to protect themselves from the union’s disciplinary authority during a strike. The most direct protection is the right to formally resign from union membership at any time. Resignation immediately terminates the union’s jurisdiction over the individual, meaning the union cannot lawfully impose fines or discipline for any strike-breaking activity that occurs after the resignation date.
The union must process a resignation request promptly, and any attempt to enforce a fine for post-resignation work is considered an unfair labor practice. The employee must ensure they follow the union’s specified procedure for resignation, which typically involves submitting a clear written statement.
An alternative path for an employee who wishes to avoid full membership while retaining the protection of the collective bargaining agreement is the adoption of “financial core” status. This status allows the employee to pay only the portion of union dues that directly relates to the costs of contract negotiation and grievance processing. The employee is not required to fund the union’s political activities, lobbying, or organizing efforts.
Employees with financial core status are treated as non-members for disciplinary purposes and cannot be compelled to participate in a strike. This arrangement allows the employee to benefit from the negotiated terms of the contract, such as wages and benefits, without being subject to the union’s internal rules regarding strike participation.
Practical and Professional Repercussions
Beyond the formal legal and disciplinary actions, an employee who chooses not to strike often faces significant social and interpersonal consequences within the workplace. Crossing a picket line, regardless of legal rights, can lead to immediate and lasting ostracism from peers who prioritize solidarity. This social friction can manifest in damaged long-term working relationships and a breakdown of trust with co-workers.
The resentment from striking colleagues can persist long after the labor dispute is resolved, creating a challenging work atmosphere. Daily job functions, which often rely on informal cooperation and teamwork, can become strained when the non-striker is viewed as having undermined the collective effort. While the employer cannot legally permit harassment, the subtle effects of social isolation are difficult to regulate.
This professional tension can impact career progression, as networking and peer support often play a role in internal opportunities and recommendations. The non-striker must be prepared to navigate a potentially hostile social environment, which represents a significant, non-legal cost for choosing to continue working during a strike.
Conclusion
The decision to work during a union strike involves a complex trade-off between securing one’s immediate income and facing potential union discipline or social backlash. An employee’s best protection lies in understanding their right to resign from the union or adopt financial core status. Ultimately, the security of their job depends heavily on whether the work stoppage is classified as an economic or an unfair labor practice strike.