Opposition to trade unions

Opposition to trade unions comes from a variety of groups in society and there are many different types of argument on which this opposition is based. Attempts to reduce the effects of trade unions may include union busting activities by private companies or state action, especially, during the twentieth century, by governments of authoritarian regimes. Political or ideological arguments against trade unionism have been advanced by neo-liberals, Libertarians, and Conservatives, as well some schools of Nationalism, Socialism, Communism and Anarchism. A distinction may be drawn between absolute opposition to trade unions and opposition to specific practices associated with trade unions, such as Margaret Thatcher's opposition to the more militant unions.

Political aspects of unions

A significant number of unions in the United States, including the UFCW — which is affiliated with the Change to Win Federation — and many unions in the AFL-CIO, openly endorse the Democratic Party, and have often endorsed the Democratic candidate. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican may believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Some individuals believe that unions focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and do not focus adequately on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for their members.

Unions are sometimes accused of holding society to ransom by taking strike actions that result in the disruption of public services.

They increase wages by forming a group of people to provide a skilled service with companies that sign a contract that they may only "purchase" workers only from the group [i.e] union. The demand for the work is usually lower than the supply and therefore the contractor signatory can "hire" and "fire" at will. A contract is often entered into at the beginning of "apprenticeship." This contract is binding and normally requires that if one does not work for the duration stated in the contract, one will owe the amount of the "training" received. Unions generally test their member's urine for metabolites that are "created by the body when it metabolizes matter". Certain metabolites in your urine will breach the contract.

Negative salary effects

Unions prevent workers from negotiating their own pay, making them settle for "lowest common denominator" wages which may represent the minimal value of a worker of their tenure. Some believe, furthermore, that promotions (and even full-time positions) in a union workplace are typically given by seniority only, with little or no regard to qualifications.

Unions can force workers to take specific benefits instead of higher pay, again because of the collective contract. If a worker does not need his employer's health insurance, or does not want to take a five-minute coffee break every hour, and be paid more in return, the worker has no recourse. Also the worker can not take a 8 minute coffee break every half hour and get paid less if he of she choses. Some believe that a union becomes a mere middleperson where the worker is forced to pay in to the union to obtain a job, which the worker might have been able to negotiate as an individual. This is not the case in some countries, like the United States, where an employer may not lawfully agree with a union to hire only union members.

Economic Effects

Unemployment

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, argues that unionization produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs, and that, if some industries are unionized while others are not, wages will decline in non-unionized industries.

By raising the price of labour, the wage rate, about the equilibrium price, unemployment rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those labourers whose work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions. As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to reduce unemployment.

Trade unions are often accused of benefiting the insider workers, those having a secure job and high productivity, at the cost of the outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionised business. The ones that are likely to lose the most from a trade union are those who are unemployed or at the risk of unemployment or who are not able to get the job that they want in a particular field.

While the disadvantage to exceptional workers, who are forced to take lowest common denominator pay, is obvious, as they could have commanded higher wages by themselves, union contracts also harm inexperienced or below-average workers, as they cannot negotiate lower pay in order to be worth hiring while they seek to improve their skills and experience. Getting a first job in a union industry therefore sometimes becomes a matter of "who you know", shutting out many people who could otherwise start a career in the occupation.

Some union-negotiated contracts may impose limits on companies' power to dismiss their employees. In cases where a company needs to dramatically restructure, this can result in more layoffs than would otherwise be necessary, or in extreme cases, a company filing for bankruptcy.

Where closed shops or union shops have been established, unions can become monopolies, where the worker is not allowed to choose not to belong and the company is not allowed to hire non-union workers.^[1] This can result in the same problems faced by any other monopoly. By charging higher prices than the equilibrium rate, unions promote deadweight loss

Harm to ununionised labour

Advocates of unions claim that the higher wages that unions bring come at the expense of profits. However, as Milton Friedman pointed out, profits aren't high enough. 80% of national income is wages, and only about 6% is profits after tax, providing very little room for higher wages, even if profits could be totally used up. Moreover, profits are invested leading to an increase in capital: which raises the value of labour, increasing wages. If profits were totally removed, this source of wage increase would be removed.

Instead of harming profits, unions increase the wages of about 10 to 15% of workers by about 10 to 15% by reducing the wages of the other 85 to 90% of workers by about 4%.

Efficiency

The effect of union activities to influence pricing is potentially very harmful, making the market system ineffective. By raising the price of labour, above the market rate deadweight loss is created. Additional non-monetary benefits exacerbate the problem.

Cost-push Inflation

There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation.

F. A. Hayek, the Constitution of Liberty

By causing wage increases above the market rate, unions increase the cost to businesses, causing them to raise their prices, leading to a general increase in the price level. Austrian economists such as Robert P. Murphy, however, dispute this, arguing that the increase in the cost of labour simply means that less of other goods can be bought. He writes:

If unions succeed in wage hikes, and employers raise the prices they charge consumers to maintain their own profit margins, and the supply of money remains the same, then something else has to "give." Either the prices of goods and services in nonunion sectors have to fall and offset the union sector hikes, or people's cash balances need to fall, in terms of their purchasing power.

Undemocratic

One "benefit" of unions sometimes cited by corporate advocates is that unions impose uniformity and predictability on workers. Corporate management often negotiates in secret with union management rather than directly with employees. Many unions have pro-democracy factions which seek greater rank and file involvement in the process of running the union, but such efforts often face a significant challenge.

Many people feel that unions tend to act in their own interests rather than in the interests of their members . For example, a union may be doing actions for purposes of increasing its membership that existing union members may not approve of.

Racist

A consequence of unions' zeal to guard its special interest is that some unions have actively lobbied for racist and anti-immigration policies. An example is the creation of the notorious Asiatic Exclusion League, which was composed mainly of the various labor unions.

The Pictorial History of American Labor observes,

The early A.F. of L. did not draw the color line, but expressed an "ideal of solidarity irrespective of race." Before long, however, the feeling changed. Whether a tendency to exclude black workers from craft unions was based more on fear of competition or racial prejudice carried over from slave days, it is difficult to decide. But the developing exclusion of the Negro worker from many neighbor unions brought with it serious problems—not just for the black worker seeking job security, but for the white worker seeking the same end...

The record shows that black workers...have been used to break strikes. This availability has usually ended when the black worker has been shown that the union is open to black as well as white.

However, in a study called The Black Worker, Spero and Harris observe that more strikes [in American labor history] have been broken by white workers than by black workers.

Most blacks were barred from membership in the AFL not because of their skin color, but because they never had a chance to learn a skill, and "most A.F. of L. unions did not admit unskilled mass-production workers." While the AFL-CIO is the modern version of the AFL, it is much more open to membership by women, immigrants, and different nationalities.

Other unions, such as the Industrial Workers of the World, which was formed in 1905, organized without regard to sex, skills, race, creed, or national origin from the very start.

Government tools

Specific countries, especially countries run by Communist parties, while still having unions in name, do not allow for independent trade unions. These state-run trade unions do not function in the same way as independent trade unions and generally do not hold any kind of collective bargaining power, acting to ensure the smooth running of Government industry.

Left critiques of trade unionism

An anarcho-syndicalist flyer exhorting workers to "Give Union Bosses the Flick!".

The political left is often associated with support for trade unionism. However, some groups and individuals have taken a less positive view. In the nineteenth century, a belief in the iron law of wages led some socialists to reject trade unionism and strike action as ineffective. In this view, any increase in wages would lead manufacturers to raise prices leaving workers no better off in real terms. Karl Marx wrote a pamphlet, Wages, Price and Profit, to counter this idea, which had been put forward in the International Workingmen's Association by a follower of Robert Owen. It should be noted that trade unions have a social structure similar to that of far left communists.

Some early Social Democrats were also skeptical of trade unionism. Usual criticisms were that unions split workers into sections rather than organising them as a class; that they were dominated by relatively privileged skilled workers who were mainly concerned to defend their sectional interests; and that industrial action and organisation were incapable of bringing about fundamental social change. H. M. Hyndman of the Social Democratic Federation summed up some of these views when he wrote in The Historical Basis of Socialism in England (1883):

Trade Unions ... constitute an aristocracy of labour who ... a hindrance to that complete organisation of the proletariat which alone can obtain for the workers their proper control over their own labour ... Being also ... unsectarian and unpolitical, they prevent any organised attempt being made by the workers as a class to form a definite party of their own, apart from existing factions, with a view to dominate the social conditions - a victory which ... can only be gained by resolute political action.

Hyndman went on to urge workers to devote "the Trade Union funds wasted on strikes or petty funds" instead to the building up of a strong Socialist Party on the German model. Other social democrats however were more convinced than Hyndman of the utility of Trade Union action.

Trade unionism is criticised by those of council communist and left communist tendencies. Here, trade unionism is seen as being more useful to capitalists than to workers, and as a kind of "safety-valve" that helps to keep working-class discontent within reformist channels and prevent it from evolving into revolutionary action. They think the government to be the ultimate union to where all workers in the country belong; private unions can go against that. In contrast to other left critiques of trade unionism, these tendencies do not accept that the problems they identify could be remedied by changing the structure, leadership or objectives of trade unions. Instead, they argue that trade unionism is inherently reformist and that revolutionary action is possible only if workers act outside trade unionism through workers' councils or other channels.

There is also a philosophical difference between the craft unionism of many AFL-type unions, and the industrial unionism of organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World. Industrial unionists decry a practice that they call "union scabbing," in which craft unionists are required by the no-strike clause in their contracts to cross the picket lines of other unions.

References

• Joseph Stiglitz (2002). Employment, social justice and societal well-being International Labour Review, 141 (1-2), p. 9 - 29.

External links

• International Communist Current, Unions Against the Working Class