Where Do Labor Unions Fit in a Capitalist Society?

[wasteofo2]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly successful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

 

[Art]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly successful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

Unions had their place in history and can justifiably claim credit for many of the social advancements we enjoy today, employment law, mass-education, general health plans, safety in the work place etc. However as governments in the developed world have now taken all of these under their auspices I am not convinced of the need for unions in the modern workplace. This is reflected in their shrinking membership in many countries. Whereas before collective bargaining was seen as the norm in industrial relations it is now the exception. Ultimately workers have the choice to 'vote with their feet' or to take their case to court if they are unhappy with their employer which exerts the moderating influence which previously unions would have provided. I'm by no means anti-union I just see them as being less relevant and so having a greatly diminished role in most developed countries today.

 

[vanesch]

However as governments in the developed world have now taken all of these under their auspices I am not convinced of the need for unions in the modern workplace. This is reflected in their shrinking membership in many countries.

If you want to see worker's unions at "work", come to France, and have your strike :-) If there's one thing this country has way too much, it's worker's unions!

 

[Art]

If you want to see worker's unions at "work", come to France, and have your strike :-) If there's one thing this country has way too much, it's worker's unions!

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members. Strikes are the best way of letting people know they are still around and can wield power. British trade unions behaved exactly the same way as they went through their death throes back in the late 80s.

 

[wasteofo2]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

 

[vanesch]

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members.

Actually, I have the impression here that trade unions became a kind of powerful mafia who are organized about promoting the individual careers of their members (their ACTIVE members) ; here, being local union leader is often the start of a political career. And, as you say, making noise, and showing power is part of that career-making process.

 

[Pengwuino]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

I think they are immensly capitalist by definition (not versed enough in history to tell if they are in reality)... although i feel how it can be construed as a socialist thing. When i think of capitalism, I think of a company putting out a bad product and the people saying "no" to that copmany by not buying things and that company changing policy/recipe/manufactoring method or whatever. Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers. Both in effect, change the company to meet the supply and demand of the market and the labor union's demands of a sort of "supply" in the form of wages and what not from the company.

 

[arildno]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

It is worth remembering that it was forbidden in the Communist regimes to form independent labour unions (i.e, independent of the Communist party).

 

[vanesch]

Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers.

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

 

[Art]

Art, I realize that labor unions aren't nearly as powerful, prominant or necessary as they once were. That's probabally because they succeded in their goals, and as most workers are comfortable, the need for organized labor is dissapating. However, what I was trying to talk about was whether or not Labor Unions were truly Capitalist or Socialist.

From my experience of trade unions, gained largely in Britain, their ideology would undoubtedly be socialist rather than capitalist even to the point where unions such as the NUM (National Miners' Union) led by Arthur Scargill called strikes by their members with no objective other than to bring down the conservative gov't of the time and to have a socialist labour gov't elected in it's stead. (They succeeded the first time with Ted Heath but failed disastrously when they tried again with Margaret Thatcher). That said, as with all bodies, corruption and self-interest ensured that many senior officials within the trade union movement became very wealthy during their tenure in the best traditions of capitalism. So in conclusion IMHO trade unions are socialist in conception but capitalist by 'human' nature.

 

[wasteofo2]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

Who wouldn't want a better deal than they really should get though? The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

 

[wasteofo2]

From my experience of trade unions, gained largely in Britain, their ideology would undoubtedly be socialist rather than capitalist even to the point where unions such as the NUM (National Miners' Union) led by Arthur Scargill called strikes by their members with no objective other than to bring down the conservative gov't of the time and to have a socialist labour gov't elected in it's stead. (They succeeded the first time with Ted Heath but failed disastrously when they tried again with Margaret Thatcher). That said, as with all bodies, corruption and self-interest ensured that many senior officials within the trade union movement became very wealthy during their tenure in the best traditions of capitalism. So in conclusion IMHO trade unions are socialist in conception but capitalist by 'human' nature.

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, because X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

 

[arildno]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

And, what's wrong with that?
There will emerge power structures in any society, and those on top of these structure will, in general, benefit more than those below.

What ought to be the issue, is which power structures do we want to flourish, and which not.

As long as I'm on top, everything is OK, I guess..

 

[Art]

Who wouldn't want a better deal than they really should get though? The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

If unions only operated at company level this would be true but certainly in Britain they did not. They operated at a national level with national goals and agendas. You could be the best employer in the world and still have your workers called out on strike by their national union leadership as part of an action arising from issues which had absolutely nothing to do with your company and you could be picketted by workers from other unions who didn't work for you, not even indirectly. There were also several general strikes where every union member in the country was forced to participate. I say forced because Britain operated what was called the 'closed shop' whereby you had to be a member of a particular union to work in a particular company. Disobeying a strike order meant expulsion from the union and therefore dismissal from your job.

 

[Pengwuino]

So workers in a worker's union make deals together to be above their individual market price. That's what a cartel is, no ?

theory, no

france, yes

lol jk, i don't know, like i said. I am thinken about how it works in theory and noted that i don't know how its worked through history.

 

[vanesch]

The Unions are just out to get as good a deal as they can, which is quite a capitalist thing to me.

Ok, this is a theoretical (and half jokingly) argument of course, but "individual economic agents negociating market prices together in order to sell their good (their labor) at a higher price (salary...) than what the market would allow them for if they competed individually, is, in my book, forming a cartel.
What's the difference between this and, say, all bakeries of the town making a deal to sell bread at 10 times higher prices now ?

 

[BobG]

While the idea of selling a team of workers might be capitalist, the labor unions in the US have historically been based on socialist ideas.

It's not the title or the goals that define whether unions are capitalist or socialist, it's the approach and techniques. Labor unions focused only on how the money a company might have at any given moment was distributed. A more capitalistic approach would have been equally concerned about increasing the amount of money that there was to distribute and might have dispelled the notion that unskilled labor was a necessary, but disposable annoyance. Necessary in that you were stuck with the current workforce as long as your investment in the buildings and equipment lasted - disposable in that you could always find a new labor force when it came time to replace your old buildings and equipment.

 

[Art]

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, because X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

It is important to bear in mind the point I made about trade unions becoming self-serving. Their activities at national level had little to do with the interests of their members and everything to do with the personal political idealism and ambitions of the leadership of some unions such as the NUM. The militant trade unions had infiltrated the Labour party to a huge degree and by use of their massive block votes at the Labour Party's annual conference ensured the party lurched to the left towards full blown marxism. In the event the British public recognised this and Labour became unelectable. During the Thatcher years the Conservative party took on the unions and with general public support defeated them comprehensively, introducing new legislation tremendously curtailing their powers. Meanwhile the moderates within the Labour party under Neil Kinnock and then George Brown began to fight back against the extreme left wing even to the point of expelling a sizable bloc of it's members who termed themselves 'Militant Tendancy', a group who believed in force if necessary to impose a Marxist style government. So certainly in Britain anyway the tactics of the unions to force a change of government had little or nothing to do with better pay and conditions for union members, they were simply using the trade union movement as a vehicle for ideological purposes.

 

[vanesch]

And, what's wrong with that?
There will emerge power structures in any society, and those on top of these structure will, in general, benefit more than those below.

No, I just thought it funny to identify workers unions with cartels. When you know the socialist ideology that usually reigns within these structures, I found it somehow humorous to compare them to capitalist abuses such as cartels of multinationals

 

[vanesch]

The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled.

I didn't know that that was "capitalist ideology" :-) I thought it was called "human nature"

 

[SOS2008]

It is worth remembering that it was forbidden in the Communist regimes to form independent labour unions (i.e, independent of the Communist party).

It's also discouraged in the U.S., particularly where I live--otherwise known as a "right to work" state (i.e., anti-union). The companies work very hard to prevent workers from uniting.

The only thing along this line is the Minutemen movement--they are now going after companies that employ illegal labor.

 

[arildno]

It's also discouraged in the U.S., particularly where I live--otherwise known as a "right to work" state (i.e., anti-union). The companies work very hard to prevent workers from uniting.

The only thing along this line is the Minutemen movement--they are now going after companies that employ illegal labor.

I wasn't in the mood of flaming Americans yesterday, I wanted to bash dead and forgotten Communists instead.

 

[alexandra]

What is your opinion on Labor Unions' place in a Capitalist society?

In my opinion, Labor Unions are a very Capitalist thing.

If a group of workers is unionized, the self interest of all the members is generally fulfilled far better than if each worker attempted to get things like raises, shorter working hours and higher benefits on their own. To me, organized labor is simply a highly successful way of a certain group of workers all having their self interest fulfilled through power in numbers. If you can't get your self interest fulfilled by bargaining with your employer on your own, but you can get it fulfilled by organizing with your fellow workers, it's just another way to work for your own self interest.

I agree with this evaluation, wasteofo2. Unions pit groups of workers against each other and can be very reactionary - for example, the remains of the unions in the 'developed' countries such as the US, the UK and Australia have a very xenophobic attitude towards workers in other parts of the world and want to save 'US' or 'UK' jobs. Unions work within the confines of the capitalist system and accept its values and institutions. They also make 'deals' with business and are used by business and government to control the workforce. If unions truly pursued the interests of the working class, they would challenge the system of capitalism (ie. private property) itself. They do not, and that's why I agree with your evaluation.

 

[alexandra]

And that's the danger today. As all the historic grievances are settled unions become absorbed with ensuring their own existence rather than improving the lot of their members. Strikes are the best way of letting people know they are still around and can wield power. British trade unions behaved exactly the same way as they went through their death throes back in the late 80s.

Art, in what way are all the historic grievances 'settled'? Do you believe the working class is not facing a crisis at the moment? From my observations, the working class has been thoroughly defeated and has no power whatsoever any more. This is not to say that trade unions would be of any use - just that things are pretty bad for workers right now (at least, for those who still have jobs; many people have lost their jobs - those that have managed to keep them work longer hours under much more stressful conditions, etc).

 

[alexandra]

Actually, I have the impression here that trade unions became a kind of powerful mafia who are organized about promoting the individual careers of their members (their ACTIVE members) ; here, being local union leader is often the start of a political career. And, as you say, making noise, and showing power is part of that career-making process.

Good point, vanesch - the same was true in Australia (unions are just about irrelevant here now).

 

[alexandra]

I think they are immensly capitalist by definition (not versed enough in history to tell if they are in reality)... although i feel how it can be construed as a socialist thing. When i think of capitalism, I think of a company putting out a bad product and the people saying "no" to that copmany by not buying things and that company changing policy/recipe/manufactoring method or whatever. Labor unions in a sense, are a type of consumer and when they don't like what's going on, they can collectively say no and have the same impact as agroup of dissatisfied consumers. Both in effect, change the company to meet the supply and demand of the market and the labor union's demands of a sort of "supply" in the form of wages and what not from the company.

Pengwuino, this is so exciting! For the first time, I totally agree with you on a point you're making

 

[alexandra]

This brings up an interesting link between Capitalism and Socialism.

It's plainly obvious that lots of labor unions have/had Socialist ideology. Look at Eugene Debs for instance, labor leader and 5 times socialist party candidate for president.

But if you look closely at the reason why many labor unions have Socialist ideology, it somehow becomes less clearly Socialist.

Let's look at your example of the trade unions in England. They tried to topple conservative governments, governments that were not that sympathetic towards them, in favor of socialist ones, who would be more favorable to them. At first glance, it seems to be a plainly socialist effort.

However, to me, it's just a tricky way of being good capitalists. If you detach yourself from the meaning of the word Conservative and Socialist, it becomes a bit clearer. Let's call a conservative government X and a Socialist government Y.

The labor unions don't want X, because X doesn't support their interests. The labor unions wanted Y, because Y supported their interest.

It seems to be a case of expression of rational self interest. A Socialist government will work with labor towards their goals, and a Conservative government will not work with labor towards their goals. The wants of the union are based firmly in capitalist ideology - the desire to have your self interest fulfilled, it just so happens that a group calling themselves Socialist was particularly sympathetic towards the labor unions needs.

We have a terminology-related confusion here. The so-called 'socialist' political parties in Europe are actually more correctly called 'social democratic', "committed to a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism", and they view capitalism "as the only reliable means of generating wealth" (Andrew Heywood, 'Political Ideologies: An Introduction', 3rd edition, pp.139-140). On the other hand, people who consider themselves to be socialists (as opposed to 'social democrats') do not believe that capitalism can be reformed; they believe it has to undergo fundamental, revolutionary change.

 

[BobG]

I agree with this evaluation, wasteofo2. Unions pit groups of workers against each other and can be very reactionary - for example, the remains of the unions in the 'developed' countries such as the US, the UK and Australia have a very xenophobic attitude towards workers in other parts of the world and want to save 'US' or 'UK' jobs. Unions work within the confines of the capitalist system and accept its values and institutions. They also make 'deals' with business and are used by business and government to control the workforce. If unions truly pursued the interests of the working class, they would challenge the system of capitalism (ie. private property) itself. They do not, and that's why I agree with your evaluation.

Maybe they fall somewhere in between, but definitely towards the socialist side relative to the norm in the US. Most in the US have had a distinct "worker vs. employer" attitude. If they had a few businessmen in their leadership, they might have traded some of their short term gains for a more certain future. Instead of just concentrating on how much the workers were paid, they should have also been interested in how much money the company was investing in their town and in the company's property and equipment. The company owners, investors, and workers all have important stakes riding on how the well the company competes against other companies - not recognizing that a company's health was as important to the worker as the employer has been a fatal flaw for just about every US union.

You make the labor more expensive than relocation and you're cutting labor's throat. I grew up in the tire capital of the world. All of those tire plants are closed now. When it came time to invest in new factories and equipment, it only made sense to make those investments somewhere the labor was cheaper. Instead of getting less pay, those old workers get no pay (or, more realistically, every young person moves out of there as soon as they can, the same way I did).

You make labor so expensive the business can't survive, it gets even worse. Just look at the airline industry. Giants like United Airlines used to dominate - thanks to the unions, United Airlines can't compete with the smaller airlines paying less money to their workers. The result - all those union victories for better retirement benefits go down the tubes when the airline bails out to avoid bankruptcy.

And unions are right to be xenophobic about workers in other parts of the world - it's their means of earning a living that are moving overseas. The problem is that unions only yelled about it - they didn't actually do anything to make it less likely that they'd lose their jobs to other countries.

They served a purpose at one time in the US and did a lot for the workers. The problem is they never developed a more mature relationship with the companies, even after things got better for the workers. They were locked into the idea that rich owners were the enemy of the worker and couldn't be trusted - an idea I'd tend to relate to socialism or communism.

 

[Art]

Art, in what way are all the historic grievances 'settled'? Do you believe the working class is not facing a crisis at the moment? From my observations, the working class has been thoroughly defeated and has no power whatsoever any more. This is not to say that trade unions would be of any use - just that things are pretty bad for workers right now (at least, for those who still have jobs; many people have lost their jobs - those that have managed to keep them work longer hours under much more stressful conditions, etc).

See quote from my earlier post;

Unions had their place in history and can justifiably claim credit for many of the social advancements we enjoy today, employment law, mass-education, general health plans, safety in the work place etc.

As for the working class in the developed world being defeated and in crisis, I think that is nonsense. If you compare conditions today with even 50 years ago there have been huge advancements in living standards for the working classes by whatever yardstick you care to mention.
If you mean by working class the true socialists i.e. the change by revolution lobby, then yes I agree they are in crisis because they no longer have a discontented mass to brew their revolution in. The only major issue socialists (a term I use in the context of your definition) seem to have to complain about these days is that under capitalism some people end up extremely rich; which seems odd to me. I'd have thought these idealists would be above such materialism. Just because someone has a bigger bank balance doesn't make them any happier so why envy them?
I have many criticisms of what I see as the 'unacceptable face' of capitalism but in general it is the best system yet devised and through the efforts of modern socialists will continue to evolve.
Communism is dead and gone and yes you can have your inquest over it's dead body; was it strangled at birth, was it murdered later, was it a doppleganger or was it simply a useless system. None of this changes the fact it's dead and the only thing that breathed life into it in the first place was extreme poverty and hardship so without those ingredients you can forget about it being resurrected.
Old style socialists are indeed in crisis and will remain so until they begin to spend their time more gainfully employed working within the system to drive out abuse and to further improve the living standards of the poor rather than continue to 'tilt at windmills'. IMHO

 

[Pengwuino]

I wasn't in the mood of flaming Americans yesterday, I wanted to bash dead and forgotten Communists instead.

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D