World Bank: Unions Good for the Economy

[CountDeMoney]

I courteously disagree with your points because I don't like them.

Facts don't cease to be true when they're ignored.

Works for the anti-union fascists around here.

[Sheilbh]

You didn't mention union failure the first time around.

I think the failure of the unions in the UK is a given.  They're not a force anymore.

The language of "union mentality" would do a poor job of describing any other groups' thinking patterns.

I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

I think I covered the main points.

Maybe, Hobsbawm and Ferguson cover the main points too

[Admiral Yi]

I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

Take a crack comrade.

[Sheilbh]

I can see a lefty making exactly the same point about management.  With as many examples from history.

Take a crack comrade.

Tolpuddle martyrs.  Various attempts to destroy the unions in Clydeside.  Arguably the miners' strike itself.

[Admiral Yi]

WTF are you talking about?  I described a very specific intellectual failing characteristic of unions.  I thought you were going to do the same for management.

[Sheilbh]

WTF are you talking about?  I described a very specific intellectual failing characteristic of unions.  I thought you were going to do the same for management.

I read your 'specific intellectual failing' as basically they only understand strength and I think it's similar with employers.  That there's a zero-sum game between them and workers.  They're interest is best advanced by being uncompromising, a show of force and will etc.

I thought you wanted examples.

[Admiral Yi]

I read your 'specific intellectual failing' as basically they only understand strength and I think it's similar with employers.  That there's a zero-sum game between them and workers.  They're interest is best advanced by being uncompromising, a show of force and will etc.

I thought you wanted examples.

No.  If it were a zero sum game I as a third party would be more or less indifferent.  It's the failure to recognize that compensation is ultimately a function of final demand for the output you produce.

edit: For example most US pro sports leagues are zero sum games.  I don't particularly care what % of revenues goes to ownership and what % goes to the players as long as they don't kill the league.

[Sheilbh]

No.  If it were a zero sum game I as a third party would be more or less indifferent.  It's the failure to recognize that compensation is ultimately a function of final demand for the output you produce.

edit: For example most US pro sports leagues are zero sum games.  I don't particularly care what % of revenues goes to ownership and what % goes to the players as long as they don't kill the league.

I'm not sure what this means.

That was my elaboration on the intellectual failing of the bosses.  That they view industrial relations as a zero sum game and that any compromise is problematic.

[Admiral Yi]

That was my elaboration on the intellectual failing of the bosses.  That they view industrial relations as a zero sum game and that any compromise is problematic.

So when management is faced with a tight labor market and workers being bid away by other firms they refuse to raise wages in order to win the zero sum game?  For example during the dot.com boom companies refused to pay their programmers more because of the zero sum game?  That's silly.  You're taking examples of rational responses to market realities--attempts to hold down wages in response to declining demand for British coal--and ascribing retarded motives to it.

[DGuller]

The problem arises when employers cannot decline the terms offered and choose to contract with someone else.

That's my beef with the unions.  To actually work, they need to impose their will on others.  They have to intimidate the employer, and they need to intimidate potential scabs.  In more civilized countries, the government does that job for them via legislation, but the effect is the same.

[Sheilbh]

So when management is faced with a tight labor market and workers being bid away by other firms they refuse to raise wages in order to win the zero sum game?  For example during the dot.com boom companies refused to pay their programmers more because of the zero sum game?  That's silly. 

There's a huge difference between raising wages and working with unions.  Unions need employers, for many employers who have a zero sum mindset the goal is to be able to do without unions.

You're taking examples of rational responses to market realities--attempts to hold down wages in response to declining demand for British coal--and ascribing retarded motives to it.

That was part of it, to an extent.  A far greater motive was the desire to smash the unions by humiliating the most militant of them and the union that had destroyed the last Conservative government (with widespread public support). 

It wasn't a rational response to market realities - though they did exist and the government did want the National Coal Board to rationalise coal mining - but a deliberately provoked strike.  The motive was above all political and, after that, economic.  From the second Maggie was re-elected in 83 until the strike the only contracts my dad was working on in the merchant navy was shipping coal to large stockpiles in the South.

[Admiral Yi]

Unions need employers, for many employers who have a zero sum mindset the goal is to be able to do without unions.

Employers need employees to dig in the dirt and operate machinery.  They don't need unions.  There's nothing at all irational about trying to break a union.

That was part of it, to an extent.  A far greater motive was the desire to smash the unions by humiliating the most militant of them and the union that had destroyed the last Conservative government (with widespread public support). 

It wasn't a rational response to market realities - though they did exist and the government did want the National Coal Board to rationalise coal mining - but a deliberately provoked strike.  The motive was above all political and, after that, economic.  From the second Maggie was re-elected in 83 until the strike the only contracts my dad was working on in the merchant navy was shipping coal to large stockpiles in the South.

Do you mean to say that the company could have made more money if they had given in to the union's demands?  I suppose this case is a little complicated by the state ownership.

As an aside, how exactly did Maggie provoke the strike?

[katmai]

Employers need employees to dig in the dirt and operate machinery.  They don't need unions.  There's nothing at all irational about trying to break a union.

Yip is off the Christmas card list.

[Neil]

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.
4. [Classified]

I don't see bitching about the paycheck or going on strike in there. Funny.

Which is why police departments will eventually get replaced by Robocops.

[Admiral Yi]

Yip is off the Christmas card list.

Perfect example.  katmai works in a protected industry and grows rich off my $12 movie tickets.  In exchange for which I get a Christmas card.