mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (02/10/85)
Lines marked '>>' are from cliff (and I don't know who he is either). Lines marked '>' are from Mike Kelly. >>What is so special about seeing different managers within a company. An >>employee *does* have the freedom to go from manager to manager of different >>companies and gain bids on wages and working conditions. What is the >>problem? > >Unions organized on a per-workplace basis. Thus, the relevant comparison is >what is happening at a particular workplace, not in the economy in general. >For example, if the autoworkers win an election at GM, they do not >automatically have representation rights for the entire automobile industry. Wrong. The relevant comparison is for the economy as a whole. Cliff was responding to the anti-market argument that managers within a company form a united front and can thus hold wages down. But since such managers do not have a monopsony, they must compete for workers against managers of other companies. [By the way, as Wayne told me, you shouldn't use all 80 spaces on a line; it makes it difficult to quote in responses.] >My point is this: non-union workers are forced to deal with an organized >management as individuals. Organized workers deal with an organized >management as an organization. >It is not just, or even primarily, wage rates where this is important. It >is important in cases where an individual feels he is being treated unfairly. >Only the union can effectively pressure management into changing its course. Non-union workers are forced to deal with organized management-S. Further, it is a non-sequitur to say that one organization necessitates a counter- vailing organization. For example, America's major auto manufacturers are confronted by a united-front, the UAW. This does not metaphysically, economically, nor ethically necessitate an employers cartel. And unions are not the only thing to pressure management to change; fear of losing the worker (to rivals &c) is a very important motivator. Mind you, I have nothing against unions *per se*; I object to coercion. If a union can peacefully unite all the workers, et cetera, I have no objections -- I may even support them. >This is not to say that all non-union workplaces are horrible; however, if >they aren't, it's at the whim of management. It could be different tomorrow >and you would have absolutely nothing to say about it. Nope. Granted that management could make the workplace horrible, but I would have something to say about it: 'I quit!'. If that management did not treat me as well as another management would, they'd lose me to the other management. Now, theoretically, I could be trained for a specific job which has only one employer (personally, I'd never train for such a job, but let's say that there was only one employer of economists), and she could pay me less than I'm worth, but not so much less that it's worth it for me to get other employment, but if she followed such a policy, she'd be cutting her own throat in the long run! Who else would train for such a job? (Joe Rushanan, maybe) >>Please tell me why it is rather obvious who holds power [when non- >>unionized workers confront management]. > >Because there is power in numbers and organization. If I threaten to quit >unless you deal fairly with me, you can tell me to go to hell. But if all >your workers threaten to walk off together unless you deal fairly, you may >just have to change your strategy. While it is quite true that organization increases power (and, remember, I have nothing against organization *per se*), the individual worker is not powerless. If I threaten to quit, and my boss doesn't stop me (or fires me so that I can't quit), at the very least she must go to the expense of replacing me, and for most jobs the cost of attracting, interviewing, and training are significant. [Mr. Kelly's remaining remarks are, taken at face, correct (though I suspect that he thinks them more significant than they are), so I will not comment further on them.] Back later, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan (the T is silent) Please disregard the next disclaimer.