I like unions. I value unions. I think that unions are the most important advance in workplace relations since guilds. I'm deeply glad to live in a world where unions exist, are legal, and have been working on behalf of their employees for up to a century.
And I think that unions can sometimes be ineffective, reactionary bullies which exist in all the wrong places and value all the wrong things.
My biggest gripe, for example, is that a union's most powerful bargaining tool is to strike. Why is this powerful? Because it strips the employer of its means of production; it reduces the employer's inventory, market share, and ultimately profits. This only works if (a) the employer has competition for the same product, because otherwise scarcity simply drives the price up and increases profits by the time the strike ends; and (b) the employer is actually making a profit, because otherwise the strike will simply ameliorate the current loss.
Which means that in monopolies or companies making patent-protected products — I mean non-interchangeable products, like "pharmaceutical cures for obscure disease X," as opposed to brand-names, like "operating system Y" — the only power unions have is to threaten to drive up the price and increase the employer's profit. Such employers would be well advised to force strikes as often as possible.
And in the public sector, where it costs money to keep facilities open, the only power unions have is to threaten to save their employer the trouble of paying them for a while. Such employers would also be well advised to force strikes not only as often, but also as long, as possible.
So I'm in favour of unions, but I'm opposed to them in monopolies and in the public sector? But that's not right either; somebody has to protect workers' interests no matter how powerful the employer is. I think I'm opposed to the role unions have in monopolies and in the public sector, to the tools they have available, and to the profoundly conservative stance — valuing job security and "theft of work" above all — which this powerlessness creates in such unions' bargaining positions.
This is an issue I've been mulling for fifteen years, and I still don't have any actual answers to propose.
no subject
I like unions. I value unions. I think that unions are the most important advance in workplace relations since guilds. I'm deeply glad to live in a world where unions exist, are legal, and have been working on behalf of their employees for up to a century.
And I think that unions can sometimes be ineffective, reactionary bullies which exist in all the wrong places and value all the wrong things.
My biggest gripe, for example, is that a union's most powerful bargaining tool is to strike. Why is this powerful? Because it strips the employer of its means of production; it reduces the employer's inventory, market share, and ultimately profits. This only works if (a) the employer has competition for the same product, because otherwise scarcity simply drives the price up and increases profits by the time the strike ends; and (b) the employer is actually making a profit, because otherwise the strike will simply ameliorate the current loss.
Which means that in monopolies or companies making patent-protected products — I mean non-interchangeable products, like "pharmaceutical cures for obscure disease X," as opposed to brand-names, like "operating system Y" — the only power unions have is to threaten to drive up the price and increase the employer's profit. Such employers would be well advised to force strikes as often as possible.
And in the public sector, where it costs money to keep facilities open, the only power unions have is to threaten to save their employer the trouble of paying them for a while. Such employers would also be well advised to force strikes not only as often, but also as long, as possible.
So I'm in favour of unions, but I'm opposed to them in monopolies and in the public sector? But that's not right either; somebody has to protect workers' interests no matter how powerful the employer is. I think I'm opposed to the role unions have in monopolies and in the public sector, to the tools they have available, and to the profoundly conservative stance — valuing job security and "theft of work" above all — which this powerlessness creates in such unions' bargaining positions.
This is an issue I've been mulling for fifteen years, and I still don't have any actual answers to propose.