One important contributing factor to the development and implementation of differential HR policies and practices between national militaries may be the existence of military forces unions or professional associations. While many European countries allow for the unionization of military personnel, few, if any, militaries elsewhere in the world permit such associations. In six European countries alone (Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium), there were some 60 military organizations in 1993 (Stites, 1993). These associations had a varying ability to negotiate terms and conditions of employment. The Dutch and German unions, for example, were limited to a consultative role while the Swedish forces had full collective bargaining rights (Stites, 1993).
The existence or lack of such associations may reflect national differences in how the military is viewed. As Stites (1993) points out, military unionization would appear to indicate a less authoritarian organization and one that reflects the notion of an occupation rather than a profession. Within a multinational context, non-unionized militaries may view those with unions as less disciplined, more poorly organized, and having less of a military culture. These attitudes in turn can affect the way in which various contingents interact with each other and in the establishment of trust in the competency and commitment of others.
On the practical side, the existence of unions will undoubtedly mean that militaries organized in this way will have rules for grievances and appeal that will not exist elsewhere. Terms and conditions of
employment will also be contained within collective agreements and may not be open to change or
amendment to suit changing circumstances in theater. It may be the case that such agreements constrain coalition commanders who may have to utilize some contingents to a greater extent rather than contravene collective agreements. At the very least, there will be administrative challenges in coordinating mixed unionized and non-unionized contingents. However, there may also be complaints of unfair or preferential treatment given to those with collective agreements over those without such legal safeguards.
One compares the size, the services, the quality of our military to those countries that have unionization of theirs, and there IS NO COMPARISON!!! Ours is much more superior! We have better training, better morale (but with obummer that's going down hill), better service members, organization, and discipline, just to name a few!! We are a much larger country. Some of those countries, we have states their size.
Obummer is working towards things like this plus, cutting the number of our military, and cutting their budget.. As I write this, I'm listening to the 3 plus hour video of Dempsey and his c__p. Once obummer has messed with our military all he sees fit, he can bring "HIS" army out into the open. Remember the training camps here on our soil, and all the UN Soldiers training here?
He has to be replaced! If not thought the ballot box, then my any means needed!! I pray we have that much time!
The military personnel already have an extensive legal system already in place. The UCMJ is designed to give full legal protection & due course to all personnel, regardless of rank & has done so for many years. Is it always successful ? No, you still have the ' human elements ' of greed, avarice, jealousy, etc, that binds any process in its implementations. However, by unionizing troops, the potential here is that the UCMJ would/could be eliminated by the ' administration ', & would be just one more nail in the lid on Liberty, as seen-ideally- by our legal systems. This is a bad idea, it puts the ordinary soldier at risk by living under threat instead of his desire to honorably serve his country. The threat is always; the contract. Now, historically, the worst unions have been plagued with horrible business tactics by; The Bosses, Business Administrators ( The WORST ! ), & ' Shop Stewards-on the take. In the military, who would be your Shop Steward ? It can't be your Sergeant-he's part of ' Management '. It couldn't be your Captain for the same reasoning, plus, he would be somewhat of an ' upper echelon Management '. So who ? Would anyone have any faith in a; ' selected by leadership,outside your unit ', troop, no different than yourself who's liable to bribery, deceit, or worse ? I don't think so. I do recall efforts made in the ' 60's to form a union among enlisted personnel. It was based in TX. Some of us were interested to know more. We were advised who was forming it. The info was communist underground interests funded by the party in England, where the commie party was legal. The same $$ went, underground, to fund the SDS & various other disruptives here in the USA because the commie party was illegal here-at that time. Nowadays, there's lots of commies floating around & in appointed positions in guv'mint. Appointed by one whose administration's tactics are compared to----the " Communist Manifesto ", Aided by such ' benevolent & caring ' assoc's such as the ACLU-whose original aim was & is the establishment of communism in the USA. Is anyone getting the picture here ? Resist & Be Aware. God Bless America. An American Vet
Please keep the unions and NATO out of our military forces. This will kill out military.
that dear fellow is exactly the goal
Not just no, but HELL NO!