Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!garfield!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!morrison
From: morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 16:59:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.137
Posted: Thu Jan  9 16:59:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 19:19:41 EST
Reply-To: morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 74

(Somewhat long).

Brad Templeton writes:

>I think unions can, and should, exist in a free market.  This can be
>done as follows.
>
>1) The non-closed shop union.  Each worker decides whether or not to join
>the union on an individual basis.  Any worker can be non-union, and it
>should be possible to have multiple unions within the same firm, with
>competition...

Each with separate contracts?
What does a strike mean in this context? Are other unions still obliged
to honour picket lines? Given the certain acrimony that would exist
between such competing unions, I doubt it.

This is the first step on the road to no unions at all.

>We get some of this today, if you look at the fact that many non-union
>companies rank among the best to work for.

Not all management is as altruistic as your stepfather.
That is why we have unions.

>2) The closed-shop union corporation.  In this case, the union becomes a
>corporation and the workers its shareholders.  This corporation then
>contracts out "employee services" to companies under whatever terms they
>can negotiate.  If this union has good people, they will be able to
>sign an "exclusive" deal with the company which says that the company will
>not hire anybody from outside the union.  To keep such a deal, they will
>have to work to make it stick.

On the surface, this has a certain appeal.

In a strong market in which competition for the unions' 
services is high, it might work. It could, however,
result in the sort of inflationary wages that we witnessed
during the 70's. After all, increasing the
supply of widgets is one thing. Increasing the supply of skilled
workers is another. (I can already see the anti-immigration lobbies
forming now...)

In a weak market, what happens to the workers?
Well, I suppose if a union corporation was smart, it would salt
away some profits for a rainy day. In fact, if it were really smart
it would diversify by providing workers' services to a variety of
industries.

Such a plan does seem to suggest a certain "inter-changability"
of workers that is not born out. Most workers prefer not
to be faced with the prospect of moving to a different city or province
if their union corporation doesn't win the contract. Do they then
sell their shares and buy into the winning union?

Hmm.

As far as stability of life and livelihood is concerned, Jamie Andrew's
suggestion of labour/management cooperatives seems a better
approach to accomplishing the same thing - namely, getting both
parties working toward the same end: mutual wealth.

	Rick Morrison

PS    to all the CRDs who seem to think that joining a union is no
      different from joining, say, the Kiwanis Club:

In a complex and *controlled* economy such as ours, some mechanism of
checks and balances *is* needed, as Brad suggests. To remove the closed shop 
without putting anything in its place is to ask for a return to the
bad old days that only our grandparents remember.

For further "wisdom", CRDs are invited to read Morrison 
article "A New Breed".