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: Re: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <139@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 13:28:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.139
Posted: Fri Jan 10 13:28:29 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 15:29:11 EST
References: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> <756@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 59
Summary: 

Brad Templeton writes:

>Separate contracts in the sense that the contract is between the employer
>and the employee.  I see the union taking the same role as the "agent"
>does in literary or entertainment fields.  

So one could have worker A and worker B doing the same job, but for
different wages, because worker A's agent wasn't quite as good? What
club does a union agency have to hold over the employer? "We'll
take our workers and move to another province?"

The agency scheme appears to be appropriate for situations in which there
are many employers with many relatively independent "projects": office 
overload, consulting, team sports and the like. In monolithic industries
with a large homogeneous (wrt skill level) work force I can't see it working. 
In a company town, the scheme would be completely unworkable.

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

BT>A union that exists only through force is a sham.  A union that couldn't
  >keep its members on its own merits doesn't deserve to be a union at all.

One could make the same argument against mandatory payment (taxes)
for any of the many social services (UI, property 
tax for education, fire and police protection), vehicle insurance...
The law (enacted by our elected officials) allows a union to collect
dues from all individuals who stand to gain from its efforts.
The argument that they should be able to collect dues based on their
own merits is about as plausible as suggesting that contributions to
OAP, UI, etc., should be based on the merits of these programs.
After all, who needs a union until you need a union, and then it's a
little late.

As I have said before, unions are not simply clubs one chooses to
join or not. They are one of the pillars in our present social structure.

RM>>Not all management is as altruistic as your stepfather.
>>That is why we have unions.
BT>Altruism has nothing to do with it.  Companies like Garrett and Dofasco
  >have no unions because it makes the company run better.  If you treat your
  >people as indpendent self-respecting individuals, you get good results.

There are still plenty of employers that aren't as enlightened as you claim 
these to be. Further, it is clear that unions have established the
standard by which reasonable working conditions are measured, whether
in a union or non-union shop. I once worked in a sawmill which had a small
independent (non-IWA) union. Everyone was very happy, because the small
union never called for a strike, comfortable in the knowledge that
the "enlightened employer" would meet whatever settlement the striking IWA
union obtained. The company had no qualms about this since it saved
a good deal of money in avoided down-time. I have no confidence that
in the absence of the IWA to set the standard, our enlightened employer
would have been nearly so concerned about "keeping its workers happy,"
and hence productive.

------
Abbrev. (Jamie Andrews) CRD = Capitalist Running Dog.
	(James B. Robinson) SW = Socialist Swine.