rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (01/30/85)
> from tim sevener whuxl!orb > Actually I have to agree with this analysis. Unions in the "core sector" > of the economy have gotten higher wages than other workers. But this is > putting the cart before the horse. How could companies afford to pay such > higher wages and pass on the costs to consumers unless they had > oligopoly power? Industries like the auto industry can't afford *NOT* to pay such wages. If they don't bow to the unions' demands, the unions strike and they can't produce anything. If the unions didn't have such oligopolistic power in the labor market (i.e. not permitting non-union labor to be hired in THEIR industry) then the companies wouldn't have to worry about passing higher costs on to the consumer. > It should also be pointed out that while the unions higher wages create > some inequality between union members and non-union workers, that within > an industry or union itself that wage-scales are generally equal. > If more people were unionized perhaps they would raise their own wages... I think it creates more than "some inequality." In the case of the auto workers, I believe they make at least $20 an hour. For the most part, they are unskilled. They could work at McDonald's, but only with lots of training. And there, the wage rate is whatever the minimum is ($3.35???). They might in fact raise their own wages, but that would create other problems. As labor gets more expensive, companies tend to 1) use less of it 2) charge more because their marginal cost is driven up or 3) both. In case 1, this means higher unemployment. Not good. In case 2, it means higher prices, which could actually negate the higher wages. Also not good. In case 3, both happen. Even worse. All in all, bad news. > We should also remember that, in fact, the labor movement has supported > many things which have aided all workers. The eight hour day, 40 hour week > and so forth. Yes, I've heard this one before. But the days of the 80 hour work week in the sweat shop with no windows and no ventilation with rats gnawing at workers' feet are gone. There are now things like OSHA to take care of this. We don't need unions any longer for this reason. > Sooner or later we are going to have to confront the > results of automation. My own opinion is that, unless we drastically shorten > the workweek, that we will wind up with vast numbers of unemployed. > As in the past, I expect the labor movement to support a shortened work week. > I expect that management will oppose it, because the more unemployed desparate > for a job, the easier it is to exert control over those employed, and the > less wages have to be paid to those who are employed. Gasp! You mean both will negotiate in their own best interest? Oh no! I really don't understand why so many people think it's OK for unions to pressure management to give in to their demands, but it's not OK for management to pressure for their demands as well. It's human nature, not just corporate nature, to want things to come out *your* way. > But this historical deal between labor and management is breaking down. Under > Reagan managements have been reneging on contracts, and returning to war > with labor. I think it's unfair to blame this all on Reagan. One of the main reasons for this "war" is just market pressure. American auto companies, for instance, have had to lower their prices to compete with the Japanese. This means they simply can't afford to pay the excessively high wages negotiated in a period when American cars were selling better at higher real prices. > At the same time a more highly educated labor force is beginning > to demand more autonomy at work, and some influence on managerial decisions. > So the struggle for democracy in the workplace is likely to re-emerge. > response to first part of Laura's article... Earlier you said that: > The deal was that labor would *refrain* from seeking > increased control over managerial decisions or the production process in > exchange for higher wages. So it sounds like maybe both sides are "reneging". And I think you're right, the struggle for fairness in the workplace is coming back, but I think it'll be for fairness on *both* sides. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "A drug is that substance which, when injected into a rat, will produce a scientific report."