morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) (01/10/86)
(Somewhat long). Brad Templeton writes: >I think unions can, and should, exist in a free market. This can be >done as follows. > >1) The non-closed shop union. Each worker decides whether or not to join >the union on an individual basis. Any worker can be non-union, and it >should be possible to have multiple unions within the same firm, with >competition... Each with separate contracts? What does a strike mean in this context? Are other unions still obliged to honour picket lines? Given the certain acrimony that would exist between such competing unions, I doubt it. This is the first step on the road to no unions at all. >We get some of this today, if you look at the fact that many non-union >companies rank among the best to work for. Not all management is as altruistic as your stepfather. That is why we have unions. >2) The closed-shop union corporation. In this case, the union becomes a >corporation and the workers its shareholders. This corporation then >contracts out "employee services" to companies under whatever terms they >can negotiate. If this union has good people, they will be able to >sign an "exclusive" deal with the company which says that the company will >not hire anybody from outside the union. To keep such a deal, they will >have to work to make it stick. On the surface, this has a certain appeal. In a strong market in which competition for the unions' services is high, it might work. It could, however, result in the sort of inflationary wages that we witnessed during the 70's. After all, increasing the supply of widgets is one thing. Increasing the supply of skilled workers is another. (I can already see the anti-immigration lobbies forming now...) In a weak market, what happens to the workers? Well, I suppose if a union corporation was smart, it would salt away some profits for a rainy day. In fact, if it were really smart it would diversify by providing workers' services to a variety of industries. Such a plan does seem to suggest a certain "inter-changability" of workers that is not born out. Most workers prefer not to be faced with the prospect of moving to a different city or province if their union corporation doesn't win the contract. Do they then sell their shares and buy into the winning union? Hmm. As far as stability of life and livelihood is concerned, Jamie Andrew's suggestion of labour/management cooperatives seems a better approach to accomplishing the same thing - namely, getting both parties working toward the same end: mutual wealth. Rick Morrison PS to all the CRDs who seem to think that joining a union is no different from joining, say, the Kiwanis Club: In a complex and *controlled* economy such as ours, some mechanism of checks and balances *is* needed, as Brad suggests. To remove the closed shop without putting anything in its place is to ask for a return to the bad old days that only our grandparents remember. For further "wisdom", CRDs are invited to read Morrison article "A New Breed".
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/10/86)
In article <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes: >>should be possible to have multiple unions within the same firm, with >>competition... > >Each with separate contracts? >What does a strike mean in this context? Are other unions still obliged >to honour picket lines? Given the certain acrimony that would exist >between such competing unions, I doubt it. Separate contracts in the sense that the contract is between the employer and the employee. I see the union taking the same role as the "agent" does in literary or entertainment fields. It's really the same problem. Agents of this sort work to promote the business interests of those who are good at certain arts but prefer to leave the business up to somebody else. With blue collar workers, it's the same, but since these workers aren't in the same demand as good writers, they have to band together both for power and economies of scale in representation. > >This is the first step on the road to no unions at all. > A union that exists only through force is a sham. A union that couldn't keep its members on its own merits doesn't deserve to be a union at all. It's like a nation that only keeps its population by restricting emmigration. You can all live in the Soviet Union if you want to... >>We get some of this today, if you look at the fact that many non-union >>companies rank among the best to work for. > >Not all management is as altruistic as your stepfather. >That is why we have unions. Altruism has nothing to do with it. Companies like Garrett and Dofasco have no unions because it makes the company run better. If you treat your people as indpendent self-respecting individuals, you get good results. If you consider them sheep, and remove their power of individual choice, you get disgruntlment and bad productivity. It's true on the nation level and true on the company level. Free countries and free companys usually win. > > >As far as stability of life and livelihood is concerned, Jamie Andrew's >suggestion of labour/management cooperatives seems a better >approach to accomplishing the same thing - namely, getting both >parties working toward the same end: mutual wealth. Indeed, this might work nicely in some areas, and there is some of this in Japan, but at what cost? What if management people don't want to do it? March them into prison at gunpoint if they refuse to comply? If somebody is richer than you, that's not an excuse to rob them to make the world better fit your version of goodness and rightness. > > Rick Morrison > >PS to all the CRDs who seem to think that joining a union is no What is a CRD? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) (01/10/86)
Brad Templeton writes: >Separate contracts in the sense that the contract is between the employer >and the employee. I see the union taking the same role as the "agent" >does in literary or entertainment fields. So one could have worker A and worker B doing the same job, but for different wages, because worker A's agent wasn't quite as good? What club does a union agency have to hold over the employer? "We'll take our workers and move to another province?" The agency scheme appears to be appropriate for situations in which there are many employers with many relatively independent "projects": office overload, consulting, team sports and the like. In monolithic industries with a large homogeneous (wrt skill level) work force I can't see it working. In a company town, the scheme would be completely unworkable. RM>This is the first step on the road to no unions at all. BT>A union that exists only through force is a sham. A union that couldn't >keep its members on its own merits doesn't deserve to be a union at all. One could make the same argument against mandatory payment (taxes) for any of the many social services (UI, property tax for education, fire and police protection), vehicle insurance... The law (enacted by our elected officials) allows a union to collect dues from all individuals who stand to gain from its efforts. The argument that they should be able to collect dues based on their own merits is about as plausible as suggesting that contributions to OAP, UI, etc., should be based on the merits of these programs. After all, who needs a union until you need a union, and then it's a little late. As I have said before, unions are not simply clubs one chooses to join or not. They are one of the pillars in our present social structure. RM>>Not all management is as altruistic as your stepfather. >>That is why we have unions. BT>Altruism has nothing to do with it. Companies like Garrett and Dofasco >have no unions because it makes the company run better. If you treat your >people as indpendent self-respecting individuals, you get good results. There are still plenty of employers that aren't as enlightened as you claim these to be. Further, it is clear that unions have established the standard by which reasonable working conditions are measured, whether in a union or non-union shop. I once worked in a sawmill which had a small independent (non-IWA) union. Everyone was very happy, because the small union never called for a strike, comfortable in the knowledge that the "enlightened employer" would meet whatever settlement the striking IWA union obtained. The company had no qualms about this since it saved a good deal of money in avoided down-time. I have no confidence that in the absence of the IWA to set the standard, our enlightened employer would have been nearly so concerned about "keeping its workers happy," and hence productive. ------ Abbrev. (Jamie Andrews) CRD = Capitalist Running Dog. (James B. Robinson) SW = Socialist Swine.
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (01/10/86)
In article <756@watmath.UUCP> bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > ... I see the union taking the same role as the "agent" >does in literary or entertainment fields.... >With blue collar workers, it's the same, but since these workers aren't in >the same demand as good writers, they have to band together both for power >and economies of scale in representation. 95% of writers and entertainers can't make a living in their chosen professions, because of the vagaries of the economy and the unpredictable whims of the people they ultimately depend upon for their success, in their case the general public. Is that what we want for industrial workers? Later he writes, re cooperative companies: >Indeed, this might work nicely in some areas, and there is some of this in >Japan, but at what cost? What if management people don't want to do it? >March them into prison at gunpoint if they refuse to comply? If somebody >is richer than you, that's not an excuse to rob them to make the world better >fit your version of goodness and rightness. This extremization is only slightly more bizarre than the invitation to live in the Soviet Union which Brad extended to us earlier in the article (and which I have tastefully edited out). I'm sure that all I had in mind was a government agency to support the formation of cooperative companies, tax breaks for companies who were recognized to have some standard cooperative structure, and things like that. --Jamie ...!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "And eyes assured of certain certainties"
acton@mprvaxa.UUCP (Don Acton) (01/14/86)
In article <139@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes: >BT>A union that exists only through force is a sham. A union that couldn't > >keep its members on its own merits doesn't deserve to be a union at all. > >One could make the same argument against mandatory payment (taxes) >for any of the many social services (UI, property >tax for education, fire and police protection), vehicle insurance... Although one can make the same argument for these services, Brad proposed a test to determine it something should exist and it appears it is by this test that unions might fail. With respect to taxes the test would be "how many people would be willing to continue to support the services?" Most people seem to be fairly reasonable and capable of judging the benefits of a service and tend to look toward the common good. I can think of two plebiscites to support this theory. One was to increase taxes to build the new Cambie street bridge here in Vancouver and another was to increase taxes to build a "better sewage plant" in a community on Vancouver Island. Obviously there are some people who benefit more from these projects than others and if they were the only ones that supported the projects then they would never get general approval. However, in both cases large majorities approved of the expenditures thus indicating that people were at least thinking about their fellow citizens. I think this same concern would hold for schools, fire and police protection. UI and vehicle insurance are another matter and might not have the same type of support as these other services. Likewise for unions, some would stay some would disappear. Just because governments don't justify their actions doesn't mean unions should be like governments. If we ran our day to day lives using same principles as our government currently uses then we would all be a acting like a bunch of scatter brained nitwits. >The law (enacted by our elected officials) allows a union to collect >dues from all individuals who stand to gain from its efforts. >The argument that they should be able to collect dues based on their >own merits is about as plausible as suggesting that contributions to >OAP, UI, etc., should be based on the merits of these programs. To me this makes perfect sense and I think contributions to these programs (OAP, UI) should be voluntary. With respect to OAP I think I can do a better job of managing a pension fund than the government. The problem, however, is what to do with the people who would opt out of OAP and use the money for something other than a pension fund. (Not having a pay statment handy it may actually be Canada pension that has the forced payments.) As far as UI is concerned it was suppose to be an insurance plan so it should be optional. Some people are in positions where they aren't likely to become unemployed or have incomes too large to allow them to collect. Insurance is suppose to protect you against the risk of something unfortunate happening, if that risk is small why be forced to have insurance. After all you don't force people in Manitoba to buy earthquake insurance. Donald Acton
morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) (01/16/86)
Don Acton writes (more or less): >>Brad Templeton: A union that exists only through force is a sham. >>A union that couldn't keep its members on its own merits doesn't >>deserve to be a union at all. >> >>Rick Morrison: One could make the same argument against mandatory >>payment (taxes) for any of the many social services (UI, property >>tax for education, fire and police protection), vehicle insurance... > >Don: Although one can make the same argument for these services, Brad >proposed a test to determine it something should exist and it appears it >is by this test that unions might fail. With respect to taxes the test would >be "how many people would be willing to continue to support the services?" >Most people seem to be fairly reasonable and capable of judging the >benefits of a service and tend to look toward the common good. I think, if you are suggesting that people would *voluntarily* continue to pay taxes, you are very wrong. People are much more inclined to support something when they realize *everyone* will be in with them. It is sort of a reverse "tragedy of the commons" that when people see that Joe next door isn't pulling his weight they too begin to loosen their load.
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (01/18/86)
In article <146@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes: >>Don: Although one can make the same argument for these services, Brad >>proposed a test to determine it something should exist and it appears it is >>by this test that unions might fail. With respect to taxes the test would >>be "how many people would be willing to continue to support the services?" >>Most people seem to be fairly reasonable and capable of judging the >>benefits of a service and tend to look toward the common good. > >I think, if you are suggesting that people would *voluntarily* continue >to pay taxes, you are very wrong. People are much more inclined to >support something when they realize *everyone* will be in with them. >It is sort of a reverse "tragedy of the commons" that when people >see that Joe next door isn't pulling his weight they too begin to >loosen their load. This may be true for *taxes*. E.g. it would be rather difficult to make sure that Joe's children don't play in the public park that Joe is not helping to maintain. However, it's a different story for unions. If Joe doesn't want to belong to the union then he is simply not covered under any contract that the union negotiates on behalf of its members. Joe would then be left to his own devices to work out the best deal he can with his employer. He would also not be able to receive any help from the union in any disputes that he may have with his bosses. If the union members eventually come to the conclusion that Joe is doing quite alright without the union, then perhaps the union will die. So what? It should be quite easy for it to be reborn if management starts getting nasty. In other words: a) It should be very easy for a union member to determine if he's getting his money's worth from the union, and b) If he does decide to opt out, then the proverbial free rider problem will not apply; he will *not* benefit from other workers' membership in the union. c) Since the opted out worker is not benefitting from union membership there would be no reason for those workers who do belong to the union to believe that he is not shouldering his fair share of the burden. d) Therefore, Rick's reverse "tragedy of the commons" would not apply. J.B. Robinson
reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis) (01/22/86)
Mr. Robinson:
I am afraid that your argument about the proposed flexibility
of unions, attractive as it may seem in theory, could
not work in practice. If a worker did not pay for union
membership, it would be practically impossible to prevent
him from gaining because of their activities. A company
simply cannot afford the time to negociate different wage
rates on an individual basis. As a result, when the union,
representing a large proportion of the workers in a company,
arrives at a contract, chances are that the results of the
contract would be applied to the whole company, not just to
the union members.
David Russell Brake I, Esq.
Scholar and Gentleman
--
--
Reid Ellis "It *is* Space Invaders!!"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committeedave@lsuc.UUCP (01/22/86)
In article <1777@dciem.UUCP> reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake) writes: > > If a worker did not pay for union >membership, it would be practically impossible to prevent >him from gaining because of their activities. A company >simply cannot afford the time to negotiate different wage >rates on an individual basis. As a result, when the union, >representing a large proportion of the workers in a company, >arrives at a contract, chances are that the results of the >contract would be applied to the whole company, not just to >the union members. Well, that's the company's decision. They can choose to offer less pay to non-union members if they wish, and employees are free to accept or reject any particular terms of employment, including pay, byu accepting or rejecting the employment. Your argument would suggest that a company cannot afford not to have a union to bargain with. Well, Dofasco and the like are doing fine. I have no doubt that Dofasco sets its pay scales and then invites prospective employees to accept employment on that basis, or reject it. Isn't that "negotiating pay rates on an individual basis"? (Of course, Dofasco's pay scales are no doubt closely tied to those of the union shops like Stelco, but that's another matter.) Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis) (01/24/86)
The problem that you are missing is that a company without
a union is not the same as the company with a union, but
without complete membership. This puts the company in an
awkward position. If they pay non-union members more
than union ones, they will get protests and quite possibly
strikes from the unionists. If they pay non-unionists LESS,
then quite soon the union membership will become near total.
Neither alternative is particularily palatable, so the
company must pay the same. Ergo, as I said before, the
employees benefit equally.
David Russell Brake I, Esq.
Gentleman & Scholar
--
--
Reid Ellis "It *is* Space Invaders!!"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committee