Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Are Unions made in Heaven? Message-ID: <602@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 16:49:29 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxt.602 Posted: Tue Feb 12 16:49:29 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 04:28:37 EST References: <509@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 44 Arndt says: > Start with a definition of what a union is. It is an organization of > workers who group together to present the united power of their numbers > to management in order to get the fairest possible exchange for their labor. One *slight* correction: make that the *maximum* possible exchange for their labor. > Small craft trade unions were the start of unionism in Colonial America. > These were small, LOCAL groups of craftsmen who joined together in order to > ensure a certain price for the product of their labor (ie. shoes, etc.). > If their price was not met they did not work. They also controled who entered > or practiced their craft locally. And how did they do that? Beating up prospective competitors? > With the rise of more extensive communication (canals, railroads, etc.) > the local labor organizations had to become regional and national organizations. Otherwise, competitors could simply move elsewhere to avoid being beaten up and use the new transportation facilities to ship their goods all over the place. > They had to do this in order to maintain control over the labor pool. Ah, you admit it. > WWI and WWII, and laws passed by Congress that took the side of both labor and > management had an impact on American unionism. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with a list of the laws which took the side of management. The only one which I can think of was the Taft-Hartley Act, which really only took the side of the government, not management. On the side of labor, however, we got laws for the establishment of the minimum wage, laws preventing management from firing strikers, laws allowing strikers to block plant entrances, etc. > The important point to understand is that the American experience with labor > organizations and management relations nearly always moved toward COMPROMISE. Yeah, UAW workers have compromised with management. Instead of the unlimited amount they really want, they've settled for only $20/hr and enough benefits to cost management $50/hr. Of course, many UAW workers are now out of work since American automobiles cannot compete with imports at these rates. And they wonder why it's economical to replace them with expensive robots. > There will always be a need for labor to organize and so face management with > the power of a united front. The exact form this will take is not certain > nor does it need to be. I agree. It's just that I think that unions currently have too much power. I guess that comes from having watched them 'work' while I was working for Chevy's Tonawanda forge. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Is everybody happy?" -- M. de Sade