Opposition to trade unions

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 union busting activities by private companies or state action, especially, during the twentieth century, by governments of authoritarian regimes. Political or ideological arguments against trade unionism may be advanced by neo-liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives but also by some schools of Communism and Anarchism. A distinction may be drawn between absolute opposition to trade unions and opposition to specific practices associated with trade unions.

Trade unions 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. 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 Asiatic Exclusion League, which was composed mainly of the various labor unions.

The Pictorial History of American Labor observes,

The early A.F. of L. 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 craft unions 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...

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.

However, in a study called The Black Worker, Spero and Harris observe that more strikes [in American labor history] have been broken by white workers than by black workers.

When northern labor unions accepted blacks, they often made "the most loyal and dedicated members." 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. While the AFL-CIO 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 Industrial Workers of the World, which was formed in 1905, organized without regard to sex, skills, race, creed, or national origin from the very start.

Specific countries, especially countries run by Communist parties, 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.

Left critiques of trade unionism

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 iron law of wages 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. Karl Marx wrote a pamphlet, Wages, Price and Profit, to counter this idea, which had been put forward in the International Workingmen's Association by a follower of Robert Owen.

Some early Social Democrats 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. H. M. Hyndman of the Social Democratic Federation summed up some of these views when he wrote in The Historical Basis of Socialism in England (1883):

Trade Unions ... constitute an aristocracy of labour 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 council communist and left communist 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 workers' councils or other channels.

There is also a philosophical difference between the craft unionism of many AFL-type unions, and the industrial unionism 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.

Common objections to unions

• Many unions in the United States (including the UFCW, which is afiliated with the AFL-CIO) openly endorse the Democratic Party, and have often endorsed the Democratic candidate. Thus union members that are politically conservative and/or Republican may believe that their interests are not recognized by these unions. Some individuals believe that unions focus too much on politics (and even Wal-Mart bashing) and do not focus adequately on negotiating good collective bargaining agreements for their members. Others observe that Wal-Mart, as a major food provider, provides lower-paying, non-union jobs, competes directly with supermarkets with better-paying union jobs, and is therefore an appropriate candidate for union attention.

• A union prevents workers from negotiating their own pay, making them settle for "lowest common denominator" wages which represent the minimal value of a worker of their tenure. Furthermore, promotions (and even full-time positions) in a union workplace are typically given by seniority only with little or no regard to qualifications.

• Unions 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 union-negotiated contracts, along with employment legislation, may impose limits on companies' otherwise arbitrary power to dismiss their employees. This, it is argued, may exacerbate firms' problems with the unused labor costs and eventually force massive layoffs not experienced in non-union industries.

• Where closed shops or union shops 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.^[1] This can result in the same problems faced by any other monopoly.

• Unions are sometimes accused of holding society to ransom by taking strike actions that result in the disruption of public services.

• One "benefit" of unions sometimes cited by corporate advocates is that unions impose uniformity and predictability on workers. The union management often negotiates in secret with the corporate management rather than directly with employees.

• While the disadvantage to exceptional workers, who are forced to take lowest common denominator pay, is obvious, union contracts also harm below-average and inexperienced 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 often becomes a matter of "who you know", shutting out many people who could otherwise start a career in the occupation.

• Where a union which has a monopoly on an occupation, company, or industry, the 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.

• Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism 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.

References

• Joseph Stiglitz (2002). Employment, social justice and societal well-being International Labour Review, 141 (1-2), p. 9 - 29.

External links

• International Communist Current, Unions Against the Working Class

Notes

Template:Organized labour portal