| Revision as of 21:53, 8 April 2008 editJ.R. Hercules (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,874 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:33, 1 February 2023 edit undoQwerfjkl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Rollbackers212,880 editsm Converting {{Wikidata redirect}} to {{R with Wikidata item}}. {{Wikidata redirect}} should only be used on soft redirects.Tag: PAWS [2.1] |
| (417 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{Cleanup|date=December 2006}} |
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
{{Weasel}} |
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R with history}} |
|
'''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 eradicate unions in practice may include ] activities by private ] or state action, especially, during the twentieth century, by governments of authoritarian regimes. Political or ideological arguments against trade unionism have been advanced by ], Adolf Hitler's ], ]s, and ]s, as well some schools of ], ], ] and ]. A distinction may be drawn between absolute opposition to trade unions and opposition to specific practices associated with trade unions. |
|
|
|
{{R with possibilities}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R with Wikidata item}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==Political aspects of unions== |
|
|
A significant number of unions in the United States, including the ] — which is affiliated with the ] — and many unions in the ], openly endorse the ], and have often endorsed the Democratic candidate. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or ] may believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Some individuals believe that unions focus too much on politics (and even ] bashing{{Fact|date=January 2008}}) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Negative salary effects== |
|
|
Unions prevents 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Economic Effects== |
|
|
|
|
|
===Unemployment=== |
|
|
], ] winning ] and advocate of ] ] 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 ], about the ], ] rises. This is because it is no longer worthwhile for businesses to employ those labourers who's work is worth less than the minimum wage rate set by the unions.<ref>Alain Anderton, Economics, Fourth edition</ref> As such, Governments may seek to reduce union powers in order to reduce unemployment. |
|
|
|
|
|
]s 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.<ref> Economics, 16th edition, Samuelson Nordhaus </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ]s or ]s 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.{{ref|monopoly}} This can result in the same problems faced by any other ]. By charging higher prices than the equilibrium rate, unions promote ] |
|
|
|
|
|
===Inflation=== |
|
|
{{cquote|There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive ].}} |
|
|
::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 ].<ref> F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960 Routledge Classics</ref> However, ] dispute this, arguing that the increase in the cost of labour simply means that less of other goods can be bought. |
|
|
|
|
|
However, Austrians are a minority force in economics, and Governments may seek to reduce the powers of unions to restrain inflation. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Efficiency=== |
|
|
The effect of union activities to influence pricing is potentially very harmful, making the market system ineffective.<ref> F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960 Routledge Classics</ref> By raising the price of labour, above the market rate ] is created. Additional non-monetary benefits exacerbate the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
==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 {{Fact|date=June 2007}}. 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 ], which was composed mainly of the various labor unions. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ''Pictorial History of American Labor'' observes, |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
The early ] 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 ] 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... |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
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.<Ref>A Pictorial History of American Labor, William Cahn, 1972, page 160.</Ref> |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
However, in a study called ''The Black Worker'', Spero and Harris observe that more strikes have been broken by white workers than by black workers.<Ref>A Pictorial History of American Labor, William Cahn, 1972, page 160.</Ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
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."<Ref>A Pictorial History of American Labor, William Cahn, 1972, page 231.</Ref> While the ] 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 ], which was formed in 1905, organized without regard to sex, skills, race, creed, or national origin from the very start.<Ref>Solidarity Forever—An oral history of the IWW, Stewart Bird, Dan Georgakas, Deborah Shaffer, 1985, page 140.</Ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Government tools== |
|
|
Specific countries, especially countries run by ], 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.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Left critiques of trade unionism== |
|
|
] 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 ] 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. ] wrote a pamphlet, ], to counter this idea, which had been put forward in the ] by a follower of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some early ] 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. ] of the ] summed up some of these views when he wrote in ''The Historical Basis of Socialism in England'' (1883): |
|
|
:''Trade Unions ... constitute an ] 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 ] and ] 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. 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 ] or other channels. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is also a philosophical difference between the ] of many AFL-type unions, and the ] 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.<Ref>Roughneck: The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, Peter Carlson, 1983, pp. 80.</Ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
*] (2002). International Labour Review, 141 (1-2), p. 9 - 29. |
|
|
|
|
|
==External links== |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
==Notes== |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{organized labour portal}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|