Trade Unions

[Franconicus]

What do you think about trade unions. What should be their role in society?

[English assassin]

I think they, or the possibility of them, are an essential element in the working of a reasonable market economy.

If capital is able to combine at a level far beyond the resources available to one person, it seems only right that workers should also be able to act collectively.

However just as there are legal limits on what capital can do, so there have to be limits on what trade unions can do. Requiring ballots before industrial action, limiting tort immunity, controlling secondary action, these are all just as essential to control trade unions as the competition laws or consumer protection laws are to control corporations.

I am fairly confident without trade unions in the past, we would all be totally shafted in the workplace by now.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes, trade unions are needed, but when they do as they did in the recent dispute in Gate Gourmet fiasco, when the BA employees went on strike, it is just stupid and indecent

[Adrian II]

Yes, trade unions are needed, but when they do as they did in the recent dispute in Gate Gourmet fiasco, when the BA employees went on strike, it is just stupid and indecentThey have the right to be stupid, just like the management of any company have the right to be stupid. There can be no law against stupidity. But the rights and obligations of unions should be circumscribed as EA wrote. The real challenge for today's unions is to get a grip on global industry and markets in the wake of capital liberalisation. Unions will either be transnational or they will not be at all.

[Don Corleone]

I have a mixed opinion of trade unions. First, let this ardent, dyed in the wool capitalist go on record by saying that no industry or company that has an active union is blameless in it's creation. At some point, they engaged in some unfair labor practice(s) that made their workers feel the need to organize was required.

That being said, I have a big problem with unions because they are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Suppose I run a widget factory. While I offer good benefits, good hours & good wages, I don't follow the best safety practices. My workers are being injured at higher than expected rates. After frequent complaints, they organize to take a unified approach to force me to make the necessary improvements to improve the safety of my factory. I decide to take it to a whole new level and form a safety council comprised of government, worker & management representatives. My company goes from having one of the worst safety records to one of the best.

Does anybody here really think that the union is going to disband? Or is option B, 'look for other problems to solve to justify our existence' going to be the order of the day. This is the problem I have with unions. Well, this, and the fact that they view themselves as the corporations enemy. When you're a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have a mixed opinion of trade unions. First, let this ardent, dyed in the wool capitalist go on record by saying that no industry or company that has an active union is blameless in it's creation. At some point, they engaged in some unfair labor practice(s) that made their workers feel the need to organize was required.

That being said, I have a big problem with unions because they are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Suppose I run a widget factory. While I offer good benefits, good hours & good wages, I don't follow the best safety practices. My workers are being injured at higher than expected rates. After frequent complaints, they organize to take a unified approach to force me to make the necessary improvements to improve the safety of my factory. I decide to take it to a whole new level and form a safety council comprised of government, worker & management representatives. My company goes from having one of the worst safety records to one of the best.

Does anybody here really think that the union is going to disband? Or is option B, 'look for other problems to solve to justify our existence' going to be the order of the day. This is the problem I have with unions. Well, this, and the fact that they view themselves as the corporations enemy. When you're a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.

Well put. I love the permanent solution to temporary problem line especially. If a traditionally constituted union does its job well, it obviates the need for itself. Since the leadership would than have to go back into the mines, they seek other reasons to not do so.

My biggest beef is that they tend to get into the "same-old, same-old" rut of opposing management -- trying to claim ever greater proportions of the "pie" until the company's ability to generate profit (it's raison d'etre) is hampered. Unless successful unions become more akin to professional associations that seek to support and self-police their members and encourage development by those members, they run the risk of "succeeding" themselves out of existence.

Seamus

[English assassin]

Bad example, Your Majesty, as the secondary action at BA was in fact an illegal wildcat strike repudiated by the TGWU.

DC, I don't agree with your analysis I'm afraid. A director has an ongoing pressure to maximise returns for the business's owners. Your scenario in which you see the error of your ways once and for all and the union can disband wouldn't happen IMHO. The workers need a way to apply pressure continuously just as the shareholders do.

After all there is a market at work here too, and people won't pay union dues if they don't see the need.

We haven't even touched on ways in which a union can contribute positively to running a business, eg by being one point of contact for negotiation with the whole staff.

[Productivity]

On the other hand you haven't touched on the fact that many trade unions modus operandi is thuggery, intimidation and bullying. Or is that limited to Australia? ~:confused:

[Adrian II]

On the other hand you haven't touched on the fact that many trade unions modus operandi is thuggery, intimidation and bullying. Or is that limited to Australia? ~:confused:It is not, and it is not limited to unions either. Management is just as capabe of it.

[Productivity]

True - I think the case of the crane driver here, who after refusing to join the union was never given another job again is excessive though.

Put it this way, I don't mind trade unions (although I don't like them) particularly, but when they start willingly using the adjective "militant" I start to worry.

[Adrian II]

True - I think the case of the crane driver here, who after refusing to join the union was never given another job again is excessive though.Closed shops should be illegal. So should political strikes unless they are being called to uphold democracy in crisis situations.

[English assassin]

Closed shops should be illegal.

They are in the UK. Political strikes are not illegal as such but you only get your tort immunity if you are acting in a genuine industrial dispute.

Hooray for Maggie.

[Don Corleone]

Closed shops should be illegal. So should political strikes unless they are being called to uphold democracy in crisis situations.

So if the workers vote against organizing, you would force them to accept a union coming in and organizing them against their will? Workers should have the right to decide IF they want to engage in collective bargaining, but they shouldn't be forced to.

[Kagemusha]

In here Unions and Employers make state wide agreements every year.It doesnt matter if you are in a union or not but you will get the benefits from those agreements anyway.So here in Finland we kind of have also a union for the employer side too.Does that make this country a one big mafia?

[Franconicus]

If you have capitalism free trade unions are essential. Free market also means that the workers are free to associate.
I do not agree that they should only be when there are problem. They are just the right partners for the company owners. After the war we had quite strong units in Germany. This led to strong economic growth, social progress and justice and only very few strikes.

Today the situation is changing. Companies are getting bigger and bigger. And multinational. Today a company can play off a plant in one country against another in another country. And they do.

So trade unions have to react to the new situation. However, the unions have several problems, at least here in Germany. First of all their leaders are old and old fashion, that means they still think the way they used to do it in the 70ies. Second: they have less members. So their political strength is getting softer. Third: They would have to associate with units of other countries, esp. low cost countries. But those workers have completely different needs and there is no feeling of solidary between the workers in different countries.

[Adrian II]

So if the workers vote against organizing, you would force them to accept a union coming in and organizing them against their will? No. I said the exact opposite.

[Don Corleone]

I'm sorry Adrian, maybe I'm not as familiar with my labor terminology as I should be. I thought a closed shop meant that it wasn't organized (there was no local chapter of the appropriate union). I took your statement to mean that it should be illegal to run a business and not have your workers organized.

[English assassin]

No, DC, closed shop means a worker can't join the company unless he joins the union. They are an real invitation to abuse, and illegal in the UK.

[Don Corleone]

Right you are, EA. A quick trip through Wikipedia informed me I had my terms confused. Closed shops have been illegal in the US since 1947, under the terms of the Taft-Hartley act, but as we have what's called Union shops, (it's not a condition for employment, but you can be required to join the Union after a certain period of working, or at least pay dues) I don't see that we really have true union reform. Some states have 'right-to-work' laws, which render Union shops illegal, but I think fewer states have that then don't.

[Idaho]

It is in the fundamental interest of employers, shareholders and business owners to suppress wages, reduce benefits and maintain the cheapest working conditions. Unions are the simple and effective response to this.

Alas the union project has floundered in recent times. Temporary workers, short term contracts, relocations, accepted levels of unemployment have pretty much killed them off as an effective force in the UK.

[English assassin]

yeah, minimum wage, discrimination on basically all grounds outlawed or about to be outlawed, extensive employment rights after only one year, generous maternity protection, low levels of unemployment, its hell in the UK job market all right ????

DC your union shops sound like closed shops by another name, you still have things like that and yet all spend your time griping about abortion? Weird?

[yesdachi]

Unions, at least in the US seem pretty outdated. If a company wants to keep the unions out then they need to treat their employees well and keep strong HR departments that watch the backs of the employees. FedEx is a great example of a large non-union company (only the pilots are union) they have very clear rules for almost everything making it very difficult to mistreat employees.

There was definitely a time for unions but IMO it is past and they just make companies want to take their business over seas to employees who appreciate their jobs and don’t make ridiculous demands. I was lucky enough to be privy to a GM union discussion and a MAJOR hanging point for the union was to have picnic tables better suited for card playing in their outside break area (they got them). Gah! I don’t wonder why a new car costs what it does. These greedy sob’s are the reason companies are leaving the US.

I could go on a really good rant about lazy good for nothing uneducated pieces of crap factory workers who think the companies they work for should bend over for them but I wont and I wont even get into how much I dislike school teachers unions, double Gah!

[Don Corleone]

yeah, minimum wage, discrimination on basically all grounds outlawed or about to be outlawed, extensive employment rights after only one year, generous maternity protection, low levels of unemployment, its hell in the UK job market all right ????

DC your union shops sound like closed shops by another name, you still have things like that and yet all spend your time griping about abortion? Weird?

Unions in our country are on their last legs. If somebody's dumb enough to work at a place that requires that eventually you join their union, who am I to tell them no? And to be fair, I don't spend all my time griping about abortion. I didn't start either thread, and I have said repeatedly I support the right in the first trimester. What sends me around my circuits is the whole late-term choice issue, something you should thank your lucky stars your country has been wise enough to move beyond.

[Adrian II]

Alas the union project has floundered in recent times. Temporary workers, short term contracts, relocations, accepted levels of unemployment have pretty much killed them off as an effective force in the UK.Yes, labour is fast becoming a disposable resource as a result of 'flexibilisation'. The consequences are experienced in all echelons of the workforce: burnout, exhaustion, cynicism, reduced professionalism, mental disorders, increased disability pensions, etcetera. The picnic tables mentioned elsewhere are a pathetic and inefficient, but understable answer to this development. For most people work is no longer a source of satisfaction, self-esteem and empowerment. Instead of facing this issue head-on, weakened unions can do no better than concentrate on such secondary issues and complain about lack of child care for workers, coffee machines or picnic tables.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dislike trade unions. They make it very difficult to run a business. My father fought them bitterly in Germany and that was one of the reasons we moved to the US.

In this day and age, to run a successful business it is essential that your employees are rewarded and penalized based on the success of the business. Trade unions are an unneccesary wedge between laborors and management whose time has long since come and gone.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Unions should be illegal.
Socialist.[grumble grumble]..

[English assassin]

And to be fair, I don't spend all my time griping about abortion. I didn't start either thread, and I have said repeatedly I support the right in the first trimester

I didn't mean you DC, I meant Americans. And to be exact I suppose I meant those Americans who the media have brought to my attention who are griping about abortion.

Ah, maybe I'd better just forget it.

[Idaho]

Unions should be illegal.
Socialist.[grumble grumble]..

They were illegal in all the best governments we've ever had:

Soviet Russia
Nazi Germany
Musolini's Italy
Mao's China

It's what makes you and Panzer closet facists alas. And I don't mean that to be an insult, but merely an accurate catagorisation of the political views you both have expressed on this board.

[Watchman]

A company always has more bargaining power than an individual worker does. All the more so the less qualifications said worker's position entail, ie. the more easily replaced he is.

Trade unions work on the rather simple principle that the many tend to be rather stronger than the one.

Incidentally, ever read those horror stories of what working conditions used to be way back at the dawn of the true industrial revolution ? (As a satirical cartoon of the time had it: "Good Lord, do your workers actually live in those hovels ?" "Oh no, they just sleep in them a little; the rest of the time they're in my factory.") The main reason things got better was specifically labour unionization. It's incidentally not much of a wonder Marx wrote his theories and less-than-accurate predictions around just that time - had the governements not been willing to pressure the capitalists to budge, and the capitalists been willing to compromise for mutual profit, worker radicalization and eventual unrest would've been inevitable.

And were too in the countries which failed to carry out such "evening-out" measures.

Alas, these days the issue isn't so much the company itself but its shareholders. The actual adminstration might be quite willing not to cut jobs and so on, but that's really pretty irrelevant as the quarterly shareholder value is what dictates the policies. The company the unions have leverage on; the shareholders they don't. Indeed, it rather seems like nobody does...

[Franconicus]

What do you all think about collective bargaining agreements. (Hope it is the right word!)

[English assassin]

Do you mean the employer negotiating with a recognised union on behalf of all the workers on pay and conditions?

Perfectly sensible idea. Doesn't seem to cause any practical problems I know of.

[Franconicus]

I mean that the unions have negotiations with the assosiation of the employer. The result is for all workers in this industrial sector.

It worked excellent in Germany for all those years. But now it is bad and has to be changed. Each employer shall negotiate with his workers.

[Ja'chyra]

The idea of unions is a good one, but quite often the practice isn't.

Unions, like politicians in my view, are there to represent the people who voted them there and to give them a single, stronger voice like negotiating pay rises.

I don't think that unions should play at politics as in my experience it didn't work out. Labour had told my union that if all the workers in 2 submarine bases voted for them and they were elected then the plans to privatise the bases would be cancelled, after everyone voted for them and they got into power they privatised the bases anyway, and the unions didn't care, they took the view that if you worked for the MoD or a private firm you would still want to be in the union and pay your dues. Needless to say it left a lot of bad feeling.


In this day and age, to run a successful business it is essential that your employees are rewarded and penalized based on the success of the business. Trade unions are an unneccesary wedge between laborors and management whose time has long since come and gone

Only if the employer can be trusted not to exploit the workers, which is what the unions should be looking out for.

It is in the unions best interest that the company is successful, and profitable, as profits mean bonuses and growth. A good union will work with the management, not against it and the same is true in the other direction.

[English assassin]

I mean that the unions have negotiations with the assosiation of the employer. The result is for all workers in this industrial sector.

Oh, I've heard about this in Sweden too.

IMHO its a terrible idea. First, employers shouldn't be in any sort of association, its bound to lead to anticompetitive behaviour. Second, an individual employer must be free to negotiate his own terms with the union (or the employees if there is no union) otherwise how can they reflect the needs to the business?

In the Uk there is only collective bargaining between a union and one employer at a time.

[Adrian II]

Oh, I've heard about this in Sweden too. IMHO its a terrible idea. First, employers shouldn't be in any sort of association, its bound to lead to anticompetitive behaviour.Think of it this way: in industry-wide bargaing systems, employers are unable to compete on the cost of labour, so they must compete on productivity, marketing, everything else really. The system worked very well for The Netherlands. We have implemented it since WWII and it has been praised by such classic liberal sources as The Economist and The Wall Street Journal for its efficiency, and by left-wing sources such as ILO and Le Monde Diplomatique for its social component. The result has been a stable labour market with high labour productivity.

Of course since two decades the EEC/EU has submitted to global social dumping laws, treaties and practices. The result has been a gradual drop in overall labour productivity. After all, why introduce better equipment and quality controls if you can outsource most processes to Chinese or Zambian junk labour that works for 0,12 Euro an hour?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Think of it this way: in industry-wide bargaing systems, employers are unable to compete on the cost of labour, so they must compete on productivity, marketing, everything else really. The system worked very well for The Netherlands. We have implemented it since WWII and it has been praised by such classic liberal sources as The Economist and The Wall Street Journal for its efficiency, and by left-wing sources such as ILO and Le Monde Diplomatique for its social component. The result has been a stable labour market with high labour productivity.

Moreover, EA, coalitions among employers in negotiations are an inevitable counter to the classic union tactic of pattern bargaining. Most unions are NOT a collection of employees working for one employer, they are local chapters of a national or international union. Pattern bargaining is when the international union, through its local, hammers whichever company in a given industry is most likely to give up the most (due to its current competitive position). Having gained the most ground possible from the "weakest link" in the chain, the International then hangs the "pattern" agreement over the heads of the other companies, claiming that only an agreement which meets those standards would be "fair." An employer coalition, to whatever extent allowed by law, is a natural response to this.


Of course since two decades the EEC/EU has submitted to global social dumping laws, treaties and practices. The result has been a gradual drop in overall labour productivity. After all, why introduce better equipment and quality controls if you can outsource most processes to Chinese or Zambian junk labour that works for 0,12 Euro an hour?

If all EEC/EU members have to conform to the "pattern" labor standards of the most "progressive" -- read socialist -- member states, the potential for productivity decline increases. Outsourcing and job migration become far too attractive a route for a firm seeking to maintain profit levels for its shareholders in such an environment. The chronic productivity problems of the old Soviet Bloc should be a lesson here.

Seamus

[Adrian II]

If all EEC/EU members have to conform to the "pattern" labor standards of the most "progressive" -- read socialist -- member states, the potential for productivity decline increases. (..) The chronic productivity problems of the old Soviet Bloc should be a lesson here.LOL. My dear Seamus, in the old Soviet bloc trade unions had no rights or powers whatsoever. It was pure state capitalism, with workers who were both totally disenfranchised and totally demotivated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

LOL. My dear Seamus, in the old Soviet bloc trade unions had no rights or powers whatsoever. It was pure state capitalism, with workers who were both totally disenfranchised and totally demotivated.

I know, I know, the unions were part of the local soviet and were ostensibly part of the government, and you and I are in complete agreement as to just how "real" that was. ~:rolleyes:

My point is that the danger of modern unionism is its potential to create disincentives for working hard or excelling in the work-place. This almost always reduces productivity and creates the problems alluded to. The old USSR was simply an archetype for what happens when motivation to excel is minimized.

Seamus

[English assassin]

Of course since two decades the EEC/EU has submitted to global social dumping laws, treaties and practices. The result has been a gradual drop in overall labour productivity. After all, why introduce better equipment and quality controls if you can outsource most processes to Chinese or Zambian junk labour that works for 0,12 Euro an hour?

Is it possible to be in favour both of reducing global inequality and of maintaining the European social model, discuss, with reference to the Netherlands (25 marx)


Think of it this way: in industry-wide bargaing systems, employers are unable to compete on the cost of labour, so they must compete on productivity, marketing, everything else really.

I am thinking of it that way. And I am thinking why shouldn't the employers compete on labour costs as well as everything else?

I don't really know about the Dutch labour market so I am on more than usually dangerous ground here. I'm willing to agree that this sort of arrangement can benefit the employee, and the employer. If you can show me that it doesn't result in the end user paying bizarrely high prices for things (which prices then have to be protected by tarrifs thereby closing our markets to developing countries), then I'll buy it.

[Adrian II]

My point is that the danger of modern unionism is its potential to create disincentives for working hard or excelling in the work-place.Incentives are both material and immaterial in nature. Immaterial incentives are respect, pride in a job well done and in contributing something useful to society, empowerment in the work place, enough holidays and other leisure to lead a meaningful life outside working hours. Just as management benefits from a stable, well-educated and motivated work force, labour benefits from reliable, professional management. Society as a whole benefits from both. Employment systems that rely mainly on material incentives and claim too much influence over peoples private lives through 'flexible' arrangements etcetera tend to produce overworked, squeezed out, profoundly dissatisfied workers.

Job satisfaction is an important criterium. The following report about job satisfaction in the U.S. would apply without the slightest change in my own country, and any other western 'cutting-edge' economy.


Americans are growing increasingly unhappy with their jobs, The Conference Board reports today. The decline in job satisfaction is widespread among workers of all ages and across all income brackets.


40% of workers feel disconnected from their employers
Two out of every three workers do not identify with or feel motivated to drive their employer's business goals and objectives
25% of employees are just “showing up to collect a paycheck"
Half of all Americans today say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from nearly 60 percent in 1995. But among the 50 percent who say they are content, only 14 percent say they are “very satisfied.”

This report, which is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households, conducted for The Conference Board by TNS, a leading market information company (LSE: TNN), also includes information collected independently by TNS. This information reveals that approximately one-quarter of the American workforce is simply “showing up to collect a paycheck.”

“Rapid technological changes, rising productivity demands and changing employee expectations have all contributed to the decline in job satisfaction,” says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board’s Consumer Research Center. “As large numbers of baby boomers prepare to leave the workforce, they will be increasingly replaced by younger workers, who tend to be as dissatisfied with their jobs, but have different attitudes and expectations about the role of work in their lives. This transition will present a new challenge for employers.”

Link (http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2582)