RE: What is Organized Labour

[jdoggett <jdoggett@kent.edu>]

I would like to discuss each of these issues in turn through the lens provided 
by Lisa Fowkes & Ian Hoskins.  Utilizing employee ownership as a backdrop, I 
think that we can identify some of the concerns of exploitation within 
employee ownership and understand the role of organized labor.

        I think that it would be fair to comment on only one of the topics at a 
time.
 We can discuss the issue as much or as little as the group likes.  After 
which, we can move to the next issue.  If anyone wants to add an issue or go 
in a slightly different direction, then, by all means, please inform the 
group.

"1.  The entity should bargain collectively for all members.  The members
> should not engage management over wage issues individually.

Correct.  The problem with individual engagement is that one could
potentially solve one's own problem at the expense of creating a similar
or worse problem for someone else - and not just over wage issues.  E.g.
I become aware of a safety problem that makes me uneasy, so I
individually persuade my boss to "switch" me with another person.  My
problem is solved, the other person's is just beginning.  Collectively,
the safety problem can and should be addressed and solved for everyone."

        As I see this point, there is a dichotomy, which is wage demands and 
conflict 
resolution.  When I think of collective bargaining, the first aspect that I 
consider is that of the organized-labor entity engaging the firm, with 
management acting as the firm's representative, for the purpose of garnering 
appropriate wages for the union workers.  In this sense, the individual 
members who work at the firm do so through a collective contract.  The worker 
need not bargain for the worker's self.  Rather, the worker is part of a 
group.  The idea behind the group working together is that no individual 
member will be left out; and no individual member will increase a gain at 
someone else's lost.  Part-and-parcel to this idea is that the firm is unable 
to lower wages over time to ridiculous levels through coercion, fear, or, in 
other other words, the leviathan trouncing upon the twig.  "United we stand, 
divided we fall."

        The other point that emerges is that of conflict resolution.  Conflict 
resolution is that no single individual will have to fact the firm alone.  
Rather, and this is the point that I think Brian hit home, the group benefits 
collectively and not at the expense of others.  All workers are in jeopardy if 
one worker is in jeopardy.  Therefore, a single gain for a single person does 
nothing to aid the workers.  The organized-labor entity ensures that if a 
problem for workers is identified, then the entity engages the firm, resolves 
the conflict, and the welfare of all workers is ensured.

        Assuming that I got these two points accurately, let me view these 
points 
through the eyes of the worker-owned firm.  Now, there seems to be some 
assumptions that I must make.  One, there is collective bargaining, which 
contains both points listed above, at the firm.  However, there is not 
collective bargaining for workers within an industry.  For example, if a flour 
processing plant is employee owned, then the organized-labor entity bargains 
only for those workers within the plant.  There is no cross-comparison of 
workers within flour plants nor manufacturing plants.  With that in mind, I do 
not see how the organized-labor entity could be opposed to worker ownership.  
If the employees own the firm and the organized-labor entity engages the firm, 
then how could these points be at odds?

        Now, I think that the point made by Lisa Fowkes & Ian Hoskins is that, 
historically, worker-owned firms paid lower wages than "traditional" firms.  
Let us forgo the assumptions I just made and consider the ramifications of an 
organized-labor entity collectively bargaining for workers within an industry.
 If that is the case, then we could have an issue.  If the worker-owned firm 
must pay workers less given that the firm fails to have the resources to pay 
workers more, then there could be a substantial problem.  However, I think 
that there is an issue with the logic.  In the past, the types of firms that 
were employee-owned were in low-paying areas.  The example that I think Lisa 
Fowkes & Ian Hoskins made was in the worker co-operatives.  In my experience, 
these types of operations were local stores, such as food marts.  Now, it does 
seem to me that if a car manufacturer was employee-owned, then there would be 
sufficient resources to pay workers more.  Intuitively, this makes sense.  For 
example, if the firm does not have to pay dividends to shareholders outside of 
the firm, then there is more money within the firm.  Sure enough, there are 
issues to be met in terms of the employee-owners receiving compensation on 
their employee-owned shares, but this money would be funds expended on the 
workers.

        I think that the difference that needs to be addressed is that 
utilizing the 
idea of low wages given the historical precedent set by employee-owned firms 
should be analyzed in terms of the types of firms held by employees.  
Comparing a local food co-op to a flour manufacturer would be fallacious.

What do others think?

Sincerely,
Joseph

At 04:54 PM 1/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
jdoggett wrote:
>
> From this submission, I see the following points that
> should concern organized labor entities.
>
> 1.  The entity should bargain collectively for all members.  The members
> should not engage management over wage issues individually.

Correct.  The problem with individual engagement is that one could
potentially solve one's own problem at the expense of creating a similar
or worse problem for someone else - and not just over wage issues.  E.g.
I become aware of a safety problem that makes me uneasy, so I
individually persuade my boss to "switch" me with another person.  My
problem is solved, the other person's is just beginning.  Collectively,
the safety problem can and should be addressed and solved for everyone.

> 2.  The entity should ensure that workers receive compensation commiserate
> with the job.

Correct.  The concept of pay equity may also be inserted here. 
(Shouldn't the word be "commensurate"?)

> 3.  There is a moral responsibility for the union to safeguard laborers from
> arduous working hours and conditions.

Correct.  Traditionally, unions negotiate rates of pay, hours of work,
benefits, working conditions including occupational health and safety,
etc.

> 4.  The entity should make the lives of laborers more enjoyable by 
protecting
> the external affairs of the employee.  This guarantee takes the form of a
> positive home-life--or life outside of employment.

On this point, I am not so sure whether I agree/disagree, or if it is
simply a matter of emphasis.  It depends on what you mean by a "positive
home life or life outside of employment".  Some employers formerly
insisted on employees' church attendence on Sunday on the pretext of
enhancing a "positive home life".  Unions are strongly opposed to such
interference in people's personal lives - whether by the employer, or
anyone else, including unions.  We are strong supporters of democracy
and civil liberties.  We are also strong supporters of the collective or
social good - hence support for universal medicare, old-age/pension
plans, minimum wages, weekends and holidays, assistance for the disabled
and disadvantaged, anti-racism, etc. etc. So in summary we would tend to
support measures that would give people equal opportunities to enjoy the
fruits of their labour by enhancing their health and security, and
giving them the time in which to enjoy it.  We would generally oppose
direct interference in people's personal choices - e.g. what books to
read, which churches to go to, which political parties to belong to,
freedom of speech and movement, etc.

> 5.  The entity must engage the political body that oversees the geographical
> location in which the employee works.  The entity must compel government
> bodies to pass, and I assume enforce, legislation that protects and 
guarantees
> the workers their rights, which presumably the entity sought and acquired.
 
Correct, except for the word "compel", which I don't understand in this
context.  Every other group in our society has its advocates.  Workers
are entitled to theirs.  We will present our case, and participate in
the democratic process, to obtain public policies that are in the public
interest.

> 6.  The entity must be ever unceasing in their commitment and struggle.  The
> union cannot, for any reason, relent.

Correct.  Even presuming that good public policies that are in the
public interest are democratically passed by our governments, there is
always a danger in democratic societies of complacency, allowing that
good to be undone by special interests.

> 7.  The union must ensure that the workers live in a civil society where 
civil
> liberties and civil rights are enjoyed in a free and democratic society.

Correct.  Everywhere in the world, democracy and the existence of free
trade unions are closely linked.  Is one a precondition for the other,
or merely a very good indicator?  Either way, civil liberties, rights,
and democracy are in workers' (and the broader citizenry's) interests.

Brian Kohler