bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/07/86)
In the old days, some companies used unfair tactics like armed goons to fight unionization. In retaliation, unions got laws passed that give them all sorts of special advantages in the battle. These laws, which include things like closed shops, penalties for financial harassment, etc. are long overdue for change, as they are now being abused by the unions. 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. Unions would have to vie for membership, pushing things like better negotiation, less strike time, support of whatever political party etc. We get some of this today, if you look at the fact that many non-union companies rank among the best to work for. My stepfather's company has over 1000 employees and no union. If somebody tries to bring a union in, the *staff* jump to stop them. With competing unions, companies will work hard pleasing members of unions who work hard to please the company. It's a win-win situation. 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. Checks and balances are what any good economic or power system is about. The current system doesn't have checks and balances. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473