orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/28/85)
> > from tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Could persistent inflation and unemployment have anything to do with > > the fact that our current economy is dominated by relatively few > > oligopolistic corporations? > > Perhaps. But it could also have to do with the fact that there are > other oligopolies out there called labor unions. Labor unions interfere > by setting an artificially high wage rate which is usually far above > the equilibrium wage rate that would exist without unions. This raises > the price of labor to the goods producers, thus raising the price of > the goods to the consumer. It also means that the producers can't > hire as many workers as they might otherwise. Thus you have a few > workers who are employed making a lot of money, while a lot more workers > are unemployed making nothing. Sounds like an unfair distribution of > wealth to me! 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? The present labor-management system prevalent in the core sector is a product of the 50's and the implicit deal labor made with management at that time. The deal was that labor would *refrain* from seeking increased control over managerial decisions or the production process in exchange for higher wages. Both sides benefitted from this deal in some ways: labor got higher wages and stable contracts; management got to retain control and also could count on labor disputes to be controlled by the heads of labor rather than themselves, and finally management got predictable labor costs. This deal was spearheaded on the labor side by conservative labor leaders like George Meany who purged the more radical segments of labor who still wanted some actual control over company policies. 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... 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. 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. 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. 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... tim sevener whuxl!orb