The right way I think is not for unions to do the work for the political parties, but for the democracy to improve.
The job of political parties is to do politics. The job of unions is to secure a larger share of the value added for the workers. Is the distribution of wealth between employer and employee not a political question?
As an aside, several political parties have historically been joined to labour unions at the hip - where the parliamentary arm of the labour movement worked to secure workers' rights using the legislative process, the unions worked to secure workers' rights using collective bargaining. What is so odious about this combination, then? Certainly, it has been effective at building just and equitable societies.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The Labour party should be the ones militating for higher taxation of financial revenues, not unions. Unions are not elected and not delegated to lead the country. The trade unions should be the ones militating for bigger salaries and lower work hours in a given industry, not political parties.
Sometimes union business is valid for everybody else and so becomes a matter of national politics (like the nation-wide minimum salary in France, or the limit of the working hours per week). But as a general rule, union business is specifical to a certain company or field. Sarkozy reportedly told the CGT union boss, literally: "if you intend to block down the country, then I'll give you my office and my chair, and you will lead the country".
When a political program is voted in, expecting trade union rebellion, as if the vote was not given by the people, is anti-democratical. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Unions represent their members. When issues constantly arise in workplaces, then there are things that unions cannot always achieve in one workplace alone, they need critical mass to create change.
You point out the minimum wage. Health and safety standards are another, in the UK provision of learning courses and skills training is a huge arm of most unions - but none of this can be done in individual workplaces alone.
Climate change, not of direct concern to unions? I'd argue it is. The workers have a home life as well as a work life. Rising prices in gas and electricity without adequate increase in salary, pushes low paid workers into poverty. Now, separate union branches could argue it out with their respective employers in individual workplaces to increase the salaries of workers and get nowhere with that or they can argue it out with the government to take countrywide action to support people who need subsidies to pay their fuel bills, and introduce policies that can help many more people than the ones the unions directly represent.
These are the kind of examples for why Unions should be political and why they should negotiate with the government. It is a form of consultation. It is another method for getting evidence on how real working people are being affected or could be affected by Government policy.
When my Government gets things wrong, I want my union to say so. I want activist organisations to say so.
You can complain about unions having influence. What about all the other lobbying groups? The voice of business is usually much greater than the unions. The voices of those elitist super wealthy few are drowning me out, and millions of others like me. Yes, I want my union to be political. Ad astra per aspera
Associations can manifest, but not block a country's railways because they don't agree with this or that policy - except when the whole public opinion is against, and there are general strikes.
When government gets it wrong concerning work issues it is the job of unions to protest.
The civil society organizations form a layer much stronger and more competent. Unions are just a part of it, and they're concerned with work issues.
I don't complain about union influence, but about giving them a censor right over the democratically elected representatives of the people. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
If my union wasn't challenging the government that is unreachable to me as an ordinary citizen with no influence, then who would be there to protect me? I can write to my MP, but to have an effect, I'd need to organise mass action to make my MP listen to me.
So I'd need to organise and get other people mobilized and active. You mention civil society organisations and unions being a part of that - well that is all I am asking for. So rather than me trying to set up my own single cause structure for lobbying on, I could tap into structures that are already there.
Unions do not have have direct line to the prime minister. They do not have direct influence to be in control of all the policies the Government produces. They have to produce infallible evidence to back the case they are arguing, to try to influence the change they believe will benefit their members (be it work related or indirectly impacting on their members' lives). They have to develop high level expertise to take to civil servants and ministers to try to negotiate and influence on policy.
All business has to do is flash some cash. And they are in. big discrepancy there.
And if you aren't aware of it, UK unions actually have much lower status in law which has severely diminished their strength, and taken away many rights over striking and so on. And unions are not just about strikes or action. That is a hugely outdated image, especially for UK unions.
btw there will never be any situation where the entire public opinion is against something. Ad astra per aspera
We've seen recently how well that works for everyone.
Business groups kick off about regulation and not letting the free market be truly free to let them do things how they wish to.
The UK unions are fairly restrained by legislation that limits their activities, US unions even more so. It isn't an even balance. Ad astra per aspera
In France, it seems there are about 5 million employees in micro-companies and about 9 million in companies with under 250 employees (wikipedia TPE/PME and pme.gouv.fr). Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
And a 200 employees company is already quite large. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
It's nearly impossible to start a workable small business without a decent stash of capital.
Of course it's not impossible, but even with microcredit it's hardly the open door you seem to assume it is. Most business don't become profitable for at least a couple of years.
As for employers - some are good, some are bad. Either way, workers do not have the same degree of control over their personal finances that employers do.
When your personal welfare depends on having a job, you're in a position of permanent political inequality with the caste which decides whether or not to employ you.
You seem to see this as a natural phenomenon, when in fact it's merely expedient and traditional.
Made by people like you and me,
Aren't unionised train drivers and capitalists also people like you and me? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Unionised train drivers, at least in France, were in a logic of lets do as much damage as possible and force them to submit. Their reasons were hanging tight to privileges. They were used to act from a very ideologic point of view that might be familiar to yourself :) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Methinks you again used a common right-wing phrase without thinking and can't get out of it. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
French train drivers and big capitalists share something called privilege. As said above. Sigh. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
A starbucks opens and the local coffee shop closes, because the custom has been taken away. By great big fat multinational chains. Ad astra per aspera
What happened to the reality based community here?
BTW, anyone in the room besides me (and I assume In Wales) actually IN a union?
Trust me, I loved the things before I had to join one. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
That's not the point. The point is that money talks. That means that it doesn't matter how many people are represented, what matters is how much money is represented.
anyone in the room besides me (and I assume In Wales) actually IN a union?
I am. (In fact, just last week we elected our new representative.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Unions represent people their worker quality and for worker issues, and as such I am totally for strong unions, like the German kind. Parliaments represent people. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
This was rejected in a deliberate - ideological, if you will - political decision. By the very same people who are only too happy to use the bully pulpit to inform those who would have been covered by such an arrangement that they shouldn't be striking because it hurts society as a whole.
You want someone to blame for the train strikes? Blame Sarko and his friends for trying to run vital infrastructure on the cheap.
By the way I'm not looking to culpabilize anyone in particular, the Sarko line is quite cheap IMO. I just don't think unions should strike over national policies, distribution of funds, investments and so on, but about work-related issues, that's all. Unions should not short-circuit democracy. They're not more legitimate than democratically elected institutions. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
What one could see as ideological in the Danish example, frankly, beats me. I think it would be the best approach.
The decision that I call ideological above was the decision to abolish the system.
But that aside, I think the system itself was also a manifestation of ideology - namely the ideology that there are certain parts of the infrastructure that are too important to be left to the whims of the market (recall that the civil servants I described couldn't usually work for private companies - although with the privatisation mania that's been gripping our politicians some of them have been loaned out to the newly privatised companies (for obvious reasons)).
By the way I'm not looking to culpabilize anyone in particular,
Oh, but you are. If you argue that striking train drivers hold all of society hostage, you implicitly argue that the strike is the fault of the train drivers. You could just as easily turn this on its head and argue that the government ("Sarko and his friends," if you will) shouldn't be trying to eat its cake and have it too - and that stuff like train strikes is the kind of thing that just happens to happen from time to time when you try to eat your cake and have it too.
Your line of reasoning assumes that the current configuration of the French rail services is inevitable, and that it is up to the rail workers to adapt to it. The alternative narrative that I presented assumes that strikes among untenured workers are inevitable, and that it is up to the French rail service to adapt to it.
the Sarko line is quite cheap IMO.
Well, as they say; billige point er også point...
Other than these two points, railway-ers or anyone else can strike as long and as often as they see fit.
(btw I merely touched the issue of the French unions' political colour; I could have spoken of the student or college unions, magistrate unions and many others whose hard leaning to the left leaves absolutely no doubt; by this, they decredibilize their own action and open the way for abuses from the side of the government; I found it extremely undemocratical for president Sarkozy to boast that "today no one notices strikes anymore"; this is were some unions' lack of reasonable-ness and politicking led: the Power is able today to frame any strike being so) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
The owners and upper management of large companies is almost universally to the right of whatever goes as "centre" in your political culture (which in today's political culture means that many of them are far-right cultists). Many if not most of the people employed in the police and military are right-of-centre. If unions did nothing more than mirror the ideological distribution of civilians who aren't owners or part of the upper management of large companies, they'd be left-of-centre. And surely, unions aren't supposed to represent upper management and owners...
As an aside, unions really actually aren't far left - most of them are to the right of where they were thirty or so years ago, but the Overton Window has become so fucked up in the meantime that they look bright red...
But I'm speaking of sensibilities. The word is very important. No one should get out of his role and act on its own sensibilitites rather than the role he has in society (police to protect the citizen, not be authoritarian, army to protect the country, not to use strength to rape women and burn villages and so on).
The turf for politics is the political parties and the democratical institutions. If others think they're more legit, they're no longer democratical. Do I believe democracy (in its present form) is the best way? I don't know. We can discuss that, but I'd rather have my union activate for my protection as a worker.
I agree with you about unions being framed red. This is why they need not do more PR and more framing back, but keep factual, irreproachable and bold, in our defense, not that of an ideology. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
And as an aside, I still think your idea of democracy would cause most of the Enlightenment thinkers who came up with the concept to spin in their graves if they could hear it. To give an admittedly extreme example: Were the electorate to decide - by duly amending their constitution - to impose apartheid or to remove the suffrage for brown people, it would be the moral obligation of all civilised citizens to work for the overthrow of this new constitution. Clearly, such anti-apartheid activists would be more legitimate than all the duly, legally and democratically elected officials of such a country.
We've had two recent economic summits in Wales to discuss the recession and how to tackle it and the strength of partnership the unions have with the Government is truly to the benefit of the whole population.
Where ValentinD says that unions should not be politically involved with anything outside direct workplace issues, we've shown here that the contributions of our unions during times like this is absolutely vital. It is the partnership arrangements that determine to an extent the role of unions in working with the Government. When Governments refuse to work with the unions, that's when we see real difficulties.
I guess another point I'd like to make is what is democratic about a system of governance that doesn't see a role for genuine open consultation and negotiation with NGOs, unions and other 'activist' organisations - the ones who have a far more in depth expertise of the issues affecting the groups they represent?
Understanding that with that expertise they can make links across sectors, themes and groups that go wider than any specific single cause remit is massively beneficial. Services fail when things don't align, when there are gaps that have been overlooked because the service design was developed by people with too narrow a knowledge base, unable to see 'out of the box' if you like.
So like you, I'm not convinced unions should stick to direct worker related issues, there are other things with relevance that it is important to include. Ad astra per aspera
Thirty years of uninterrupted rule by syndicalists and pre-Schröder Social Democrats will do that to a country :-P
Economic issues almost always touch employees' interest (there are so few true workers left today, that I kind of prefer employees).
But what would you say if your Welsh (ok, not a world economic power, but still, for the sake of example) went on strike Against Multinationals or Ultraliberalism - ie, for a clearly ideological issue. I can perfectly understand French post office employees on strike against privatisation, for instance. I cannot do the same regarding those on strike for the "preservation of the Public Service", which is a matter of public policy which in fact has only positive effects on them personally and on the respective service. They go on strike (supposedly) in the stead of the citizen, ie, opposing elections (by which people chose a non-left candidate). Hence they use their right for a kind of political coup (keeping proportions) which would not benefit them in any way. These are ideological attitudes to be avoided for their own credibility (and probably against the law as well). Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
But what would you say if your Welsh (ok, not a world economic power, but still, for the sake of example) went on strike Against Multinationals or Ultraliberalism - ie, for a clearly ideological issue.
I fail to see how going on strike against transnats is beyond the scope of labour rights. Some of the worst offenders on labour rights are precisely the transnats you don't want unions to strike against. One of the fundamental principles of all labour organisation is that abusing labour somewhere is abusing labour everywhere - partly out of an ideological sense of solidarity with the oppressed, but more pragmatically because slave labour abroad undercuts our bargaining position at home.
So dock workers refusing to unload a container of iPods because the factory they were produced in is abusive to its labour force is a strike directly against a company policy that harms the interests of the dock workers.
As for striking against neoliberalism, I can see various tactical and strategic problems - how do you know when you've won? What concessions would you demand?
But going on strike against a neoliberal government, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable if you think the strike has a reasonable chance of hurting it more than it will hurt you. You'd support, I hope, a strike against an Islamic (or Christian) fundagelical government, even if it came to power through elections? And surely neoliberalism isn't any less noxious than Shari'a?
I can perfectly understand French post office employees on strike against privatisation, for instance. I cannot do the same regarding those on strike for the "preservation of the Public Service",
What's the difference between striking against privatisation and striking for preservation of the public service? I fail to see the distinction.
They go on strike (supposedly) in the stead of the citizen, ie, opposing elections
Bullshit.
Elections are decided on a fairly small range of issues - and the issues that unions usually strike over aren't usually among them. Further, during an election campaign, politicians will frequently make different - and conflicting - promises to different interest groups in society. Why shouldn't unions protect their interests when politicians try to undercut their own promises?
(Why people believe that a right-wing politician won't try to undercut labour rights and dismantle the public service is something of a mystery to me. But when you poll people, they apparently do. So, in a sense, when unions strike against the dismantling of the public service, they're just demanding that the politicians do what the voters apparently thought they were doing all along...)
These are ideological attitudes to be avoided for their own credibility (and probably against the law as well).
The Underground Railroad didn't have much credibility in the Confederacy either. Nor was it precisely legal...
At any rate, the internationalisation of labour interests can hardly be laid at the feet of the unions. If you internationalise capital, you internationalise labour interests. This is straightforward, generally acknowledged economics that no serious economist - left or right - disputes: In an era of globalised capital, doing offence to workers in China does direct and measurable harm to the hard and fast numbers on my bottom line in Denmark. Permit me to repeat: This is straight out of page 0 of any textbook on globalisation you might care to pick up.
So, if labour unions aren't supposed to defend the direct, measurable and extremely concrete interests of their members, then WTF are they supposed to do?
Distribution of wealth and work conditions are certainly political when the talk is about work or economic policies. When it is part of the debate employee-eployer at company, branch, or field level, it's union stuff.
An artificial distinction, if you ask me. When Parliament enacts a law stipulating that a labourer may not lift more than so-and-so many kg pr. day (on account of protecting his back from injury), it is usually the unions that end up enforcing it. When the unions negotiate terms for overtime pay, it is often the police that enforces it (or rather, the tax collection agency, because they're the ones who settle debts that the debtor refuses to pay).
And I also doubt that you'd apply the same distinction to - say - green politicians and pro-environment NGOs. Why shouldn't Greenpeace agitate for a cap on CO_2 emissions? Should they leave that to the political parties who are supposed to formulate nationwide policy?
That would be a curious kind of democracy.
Some industries are declining. Workers get made redundant. Let's say that the green agenda in many ways is good for a country as well as being good for a planet. Let's say a country commits to a significant investment in developing an infrastructure for renewable and green energy. This creates new jobs, redundant workers can be retrained and learn new skills and be kitted out to take on these new jobs.
There is a role for unions to play here, in supporting these workers but also in encouraging government and persuading them that this is a good course of action to take. Renewable energy helps to meet energy challenges, new jobs keeps people from needing benefits and from possibly not finding jobs again etc...
Now, if we kept all these things entirely separate and didn't let unions form and promote policy on green issues then it could take much longer for governments to come around to a more innovative way of thinking, they wouldn't have the forethought to retrain workers being made redundant from certain sectors and the links between apparently separate policy areas (environment, energy, employment, welfare) would be missed. Ad astra per aspera
I'd like to hear his answer to this.
I'm repeating myself. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
It seems to me that what you're complaining about is that some NGOs have members who hold influential positions within society and that those NGOs can mobilise those members to exert their influence, and that this gives them an influence that is not in proportion to their membership.
If that is your concern, then I suggest you take aim at the chemicals lobby, the finance lobby and the aeronautics lobby before laying blame on unions. Very few unions actually wield disproportionate power. And those who do do so only because various right-wing governments have been too miserly to create a cadre of tenured, well-paid civil servants with good pensions and high job security to handle critical infrastructure.
