Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Wage Rates: Unions, Minimum Wage Laws, and Employer Oligopoly Message-ID: <596@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 17:10:34 EST Article-I.D.: tty3b.596 Posted: Wed Feb 6 17:10:34 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 00:20:13 EST References: <811@ratex.UUCP> <593@tty3b.UUCP> <632@unmvax.UUCP> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 76 >From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP > >What is so special about seeing different managers within a company. An >employee *does* have the freedom to go from manager to manager of different >companies and gain bids on wages and working conditions. What is the problem? Unions organize on a per-workplace basis. Thus, the relevant comparison is what is happening at a particular workplace, not in the economy in general. For example, if the autoworkers win an election at GM, they do not automatically have representation rights for the entire automobile industry. My point is this: non-union workers are forced to deal with an organized management as individuals. Organized workers deal with an organized management as an organization. It is not just, or even primarily, wage rates where this is important. It is important in cases where an individual feels he is being treated unfairly. Only the union can effectively pressure management into changing its course. This is not to say that all non-union workplaces are horrible; however, if they aren't, it's at the whim of management. It could be different tomorrow and you would have absolutely nothing to say about it. >Please tell me why it is rather obvious who holds the power in such a situation. (ed.note: when non-unionized workers confront organized management) Because there is power in numbers and organization. If I threaten to quit unless you deal fairly with me, you can tell me to go to hell. But if all your workers threaten to walk off together unless you deal fairly, you may just have to change your strategy. You can argue that it is *wrong* for workers to have such power (many would join you in this newsgroup), but it seems silly to argue that organization does not bring with it power. >Why is it that unions are on the decline? Why is it that computer professionals >have not unionized? The reasons are complex. Partly it is due to the restrictive labor laws in this country when compared with, for example, Western Europe. Partly it is due to large-scale unemployment in the industries (steel, autos, manufacturing) where unionization was high. Partly it is due to the difficulty of organizing new service industries because they typically have much smaller workplaces. It is also, at least in part, due to an ideological offensive against trade unions. Computer professionals aren't unionized because most professionals aren't unionized. Professionals, in fact, are usually classified as management employees by the NLRB, and thus cannot be organized. There have been some exceptions to this. Another reason is that their (our) labor is in demand, so wages and working conditions tend to be good. If you think that will last forever, however, I know some autoworkers who thought the same around 1968 you should talk to. The benefits computer professionals have grown accustomed to -- flexible hours, pleasant working conditions, high wages -- will be cut back as soon as management thinks it can afford to do so. Look at how many kids are going into computer science programs today. You may call yourself a professional, but you're just another production input, and your cost will be minimized when supply increases. >What you really mean is that the workers >who can be replaced by unemployed people that would love to have *any* job >should be given special status because they are already employed! Long Live >The Status Quo! > No, not special status, and not long live the status quo. Let's accomodate change and obsolete jobs if necessary. But obsoleting a job shouldn't mean obsoleting a worker. You also make a very Marxist argument on unemployment -- basically, it is tolerated politically because it disciplines the workforce. THere is always the unspoken message, "Remember, that could be you. It could be your family without an income. It could be your health insurance gone. It could be your house being repossesed. Stay in line. Or you could be next." Mike Kelly