If there was no need, and desire, for what unions supply their members, there would be no unions.
I don't think that argument holds up. Inertia is a powerful force. And unions have so much legislative backing that it would be all but impossible to ever get rid of one, once established. Even if a majority of employees wanted to get rid of it, the prospect of doing so is just too onerous so they just keep on keeping on.
Unions de-certify. They compete - they raid each other. Memberships switch to other unions. Industries and businesses disappear and so does the union membership in them. (Like businesses, unions will sometimes also conspire not to compete. See Adam Smith).
For many years in the US and Canada great effort was made to illegalize unions. Despite this, and without ideological input, unions continued to establish in reponse to workers' needs and desire.
As for "legislative backing", how does this differ from that which various industries get? It has always been the case various groups will try to make alliance with parts of government to promote their interests. I see no difference between the Senator from ADM and the Senator from the AFL-CIO.
Also, it would definitely be a mistake to think unions have no positive value for employers.
I acknowledge that there is value for employers in that they provide cover for a company wanting to do the minimum or tolerate poor management. But saying so seems more like damning with faint praise.
I was talking about economic value. As a business person, I want to spend my time in activities which will increase ROI, gross revenues and margins, develop products and marketing, and I want to spend only the optimal time on personnel issues. Union agreements and procedures can certainly contribute to that end. Many large non-union companies put in place the same sorts of structures, not only because they keep unions out, but because they are cost effective.
Unions are a logical outcome of modern society which believes in the primacy of self rule and reason. Look, possibly 90% of human interaction outside of family happens in the workplace, which is rife with power relations that must be negotiated and market requirements which also, and relatedly, must be calculated. In this context, we find ownership and management well organized, do you expect those working for them not to be, also? (And bear in mind not all ownership and management is benevolent, and sometimes is downright malicious).
My beef with unions is the same as I have with business - the ownership is often complacent -see Enron, Teamsters. In the Union context this eventually falls out as lack of democracy within the union. Mrs Thatcher was not anti-union, she was against undemocratic unions, and for good reason -lack of democracy gives rise to corruption and demogogary (which is a polite way of saying various kinds of thuggery and fascism).
The bulk of my experience with unions is in the Federal sector where they are a wretched drain on energy, creativity, response time, and reform.
Ah.... I've worked for businesses about which I could say with equal justice, ownership and management "are a wretched drain on energy, creativity, response time, and reform."
The condition of mediocrity is universal - the long term effect of markets is to raise the general level of mediocrity. Takes longer for the effect to spill into the government area because of the lack of market feedback. |
