The passage of "right to work" legislation in Michigan is one further nail in the coffin of unions in this country. Even though it is indisputable that the unions have brought great gains to the working class over the years, perhaps their passing should not be mourned. For their demise should forever dispel the myth that capital and labor have anything whatsoever in common.
Traditional unionism was predicated upon the assumption that capitalism could be made to work equally well for both management and the working class, that their goals were synonymous. For a long time, under favorable conditions, the unions made great gains and were able to make that assumption seem as though it were true.
But those gains have ultimately proven to have been built upon a foundation of sand. As the natural antagonisms between the classes that the unions had sought to gloss over became more pronounced, one by one those gains have been stripped away. And the working class will soon find itself no better off than its counterparts were in the late 19th century.
History will record that unionism, despite its temporary gains, was a dead end for the working class that was ultimately doomed to fail. The only way that the working class can make gains on its behalf impervious to the machinations of an antagonistic management class is to assume control of the means of production, and the management of it, for themselves in the form of worker owned businesses.
If the labor movement had put its efforts into building a mutually supporting network of worker owned businesses, instead of throwing their lot in with a spurious partnership with capital, then they would have a lot more to show for their efforts today than the few tattered rags that traditional unionism has left them.
Some unions have begun to wake up to this fact, as evidenced by the partnership between the United Steel Workers and Spain's Mondragon cooperatives. But it remains to be seen if they will be able to reinvent themselves to become relevant in the 21st century. Either way, the future of the working class lies with worker ownership and not with false assumptions built on the non-existent partnership between capital and labor.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97448
Originally posted by rwingettI heard on the radio that unions only represent 6.9% of the U.S labor force. That would seem to be a very small percentage. With the leverage they appear to hold over our elected officials I would have thought the percentage they represented would have been much, much higher.
The passage of "right to work" legislation in Michigan is one further nail in the coffin of unions in this country. Even though it is indisputable that the unions have brought great gains to the working class over the years, perhaps their passing should not be mourned. For their demise should forever dispel the myth that capital and labor have anything what ...[text shortened]... d not with false assumptions built on the non-existent partnership between capital and labor.
Originally posted by boononAs much as 33% of the work force was unionized at one time. With the scope and power of unions in precipitous decline, it is doubtful that they'll retain much of a hold over anyone.
I heard on the radio that unions only represent 6.9% of the U.S labor force. That would seem to be a very small percentage. With the leverage they appear to hold over our elected officials I would have thought the percentage they represented would have been much, much higher.
Originally posted by boononBecause of corruption, misappropriation of funds and other abuses,
I heard on the radio that unions only represent 6.9% of the U.S labor force. That would seem to be a very small percentage. With the leverage they appear to hold over our elected officials I would have thought the percentage they represented would have been much, much higher.
trade union membership is declining in Ireland.
The union that I was a member of used to be called the ITGWU.
The Irish Transport and General Workers Union.
They have since changed their name to SIPTU.
Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union.
They are the largest trade union in Ireland with over 200,000 members.
But that is declining now what with new labour legislation which protects
the rights of more workers.
A guy outside the union has the same rights as the guy in the union.
So you would have to ask yourself why bother being in a union?
The only power they seem to wield now is in local bargaining.
They can tweak certain terms and conditions and, if a place is going bust,
try to negotiate a better severance package for those affected.
So instead of statutory redundancy, which is currently 2.5 weeks pay
for every year of your service,
you possibly might do a little better.......but no guarantees.
Originally posted by rwingettWhere do workers get the start up money to begin all of these worker-owned businesses? Who pays the workers until the business becomes profitable (which is usually at least a few years)?
The passage of "right to work" legislation in Michigan is one further nail in the coffin of unions in this country. Even though it is indisputable that the unions have brought great gains to the working class over the years, perhaps their passing should not be mourned. For their demise should forever dispel the myth that capital and labor have anything what ...[text shortened]... d not with false assumptions built on the non-existent partnership between capital and labor.
Originally posted by sh76I dunno. They take out a loan, I guess. How did the Mondragon cooperatives get started? Now they have 80,000+ worker/owners. How did the Evergreen Cooperatives, Arizmendi Bakery, Isthmus Engineering or Equal Exchange all get started? I don't know where the startup money came from. But it obviously came from somewhere.
Where do workers get the start up money to begin all of these worker-owned businesses? Who pays the workers until the business becomes profitable (which is usually at least a few years)?
There's a new documentary making the rounds now, called Shift Change: Putting Democracy to Work. It's a film "by veteran award-winning filmmakers Melissa Young and Mark Dworkin. It tells the little known stories of employee owned businesses that compete successfully in today’s economy while providing secure, dignified jobs in democratic workplaces."
http://shiftchange.org/video-clips/
Originally posted by sh76http://www.solhaam.org/articles/mondra.html
Where do workers get the start up money to begin all of these worker-owned businesses? Who pays the workers until the business becomes profitable (which is usually at least a few years)?
Mondragon, it seems, has its own cooperative bank (Caja Laboral Popular) that makes low interest loans available to startup cooperatives. That's where the bulk of their financing comes from. Some comes from the Spanish government in the form of low interest loans aimed at job creation. The rest comes from the workers themselves.
Originally posted by sh76Here's a little something else I found:
Where do workers get the start up money to begin all of these worker-owned businesses? Who pays the workers until the business becomes profitable (which is usually at least a few years)?
Financing for Evergreen Cooperative Laundry
Senior debt:
• First Merit (local commercial bank)
750,000
• Shorebank
750,000
• City of Cleveland (HUD Section 108 loan)
1,500,000
Equity
(sub-debt through Evergreen Cooperative Development Fund)
• New Market Tax Credits (~30% of $5M allocation)
1,500,000
• Cleveland Foundation (Evergreen Fund)
750,000
Working capital:
• City of Cleveland (EDA/Dept. of Commerce)
200,000
• Common Wealth Revolving Loan Fund
250,000
Total
5,700,000
- Joined
- 09 Apr 08
- Moves
- 19950
I live in Wisconsin where we had all the hysteria over the end of the teacher's union. Some little publicized facts that came out in the obscure pages of papers were quite revealing...
1. Several school principals wrote editorials reporting for the first time ever they had a surplus in their budgets. In one case, they were able to hire 2 additional full time teachers that they desperately needed to reduce class sizes and upgrade their computer lab which was horribly out of date. Meanwhile all we kept hearing from the unions was how this was an attack on the quality of education in the state. Funny how new teachers getting jobs that they didn't have before, reduced class sizes, and newer computers can be classified as anything other than a winning scenario for education.
2. I found out from a police officer that the police union and the teacher's union both had identical insurance policies from the same provider and yet the teacher's union was paying significantly more money for that exact same policy than the police union paid. How does that make any sense what so ever? Are not the police in a far riskier profession than teachers and thus wouldn't you expect them to pay higher rates than teachers?
3. My uncle was a teacher and didn't want to strike when the union wanted them to and received some threatening words for not supporting the union.
The bottom line is that unions started out as a noble cause and served a good purpose at one time. Unfortunately, many unions have become corrupt power hungry organizations that extort large sums of money from the people they are supposed to represent not to mention the tax payers.
That being said, I'm not opposed to all unions and I would cite the police union as an exception. In the case of police officers some protection for the jobs of veteran officers needs to be observed because policing the streets, chasing down criminals, getting in fights is a job that younger guys are better suited to do. You would hate to see veteran officers who are now making the maximum benefits have their jobs cut because they can hire a younger officer who they can pay minimum benefits to do the job better.
You would hate to see veteran officers who are now making the maximum benefits have their jobs cut because they can hire a younger officer who they can pay minimum benefits to do the job better.[/b]We live in a world where money is a finite resourse. If someone else will do the same job (assuming they do it just as well) for less why would you ever not do that?
- Joined
- 09 Apr 08
- Moves
- 19950
Originally posted by quackquackExactly, that's why the police departments feel they need a union. If they lose their job because they age there isn't a lot of other great career options out there for them to fall back on, unless they were wise enough to get a college degree in something else that they can fall back on.
We live in a world where money is a finite resourse. If someone else will do the same job (assuming they do it just as well) for less why would you ever not do that?
If there is less certainty for a career in law enforcement I would suspect fewer and fewer people would go into that occupation and we might see a shortage of people in this field.
For these reasons I have more sympathy for a police union than I do a teacher's union which I fail to see any pressing need for in this day and age.
Originally posted by TheSurgeonI have no way of knowing if a young cop is a good as an older one. Perhaps the wisdom gained outweighs the physical ability lost. But if you are correct and young police officers are just as good (or better) than old ones than the union's interest in protecting older and inferior officers contradicts with societies interest in having better police officers.
Exactly, that's why the police departments feel they need a union. If they lose their job because they age there isn't a lot of other great career options out there for them to fall back on, unless they were wise enough to get a college degree in something else that they can fall back on.
If there is less certainty for a career in law enforcement I w ...[text shortened]... on than I do a teacher's union which I fail to see any pressing need for in this day and age.
Originally posted by quackquackMoney is not a resource!
We live in a world where money is a finite resourse. If someone else will do the same job (assuming they do it just as well) for less why would you ever not do that?
Putting that aside: are you saying that economic growth is bound to hit a stagnant plateau?
Originally posted by rwingettNo bank will give a large loan to a startups without any personal guarantees.
I dunno. They take out a loan, I guess. How did the Mondragon cooperatives get started? Now they have 80,000+ worker/owners. How did the Evergreen Cooperatives, Arizmendi Bakery, Isthmus Engineering or Equal Exchange all get started? I don't know where the startup money came from. But it obviously came from somewhere.
There's a new documentary making th ...[text shortened]... ecure, dignified jobs in democratic workplaces."[/i]
http://shiftchange.org/video-clips/
In any case, while there may be examples of successful worker owned companies, in most cases, companies exist because somebody had the guts and the foresight to take the financial and personal risk to start it up for the possibility of earning a profit in the end.
Without the profit motive, who is going to make the decision to start a risky new business? It may work sometimes, but many fewer businesses will be started.
Originally posted by rwingettYour implied indictment of capitalists and capitalism is noted. However, I think you're failing to consider the very real fact that in an increasingly mobile world, capital is more able to flow freely, and into investments, businesses, and factories that offer an optimized return for investors. In other words: it is not ideologically coherent to simultaneously desire cheap goods and high wages.
The passage of "right to work" legislation in Michigan is one further nail in the coffin of unions in this country. Even though it is indisputable that the unions have brought great gains to the working class over the years, perhaps their passing should not be mourned. For their demise should forever dispel the myth that capital and labor have anything what ...[text shortened]... d not with false assumptions built on the non-existent partnership between capital and labor.
It's less productive to be ideologically rigid than it is to simply acquire a skill that the marketplace desires. It helps to be mobile oneself. Artificial creations like unions had their place in a time when working conditions were poor and dangerous. They have outlived their usefulness when their goal is to preserve the role of the employee making $72 an hour installing windshield wipers. It's also likely that unions will develop where they can again be useful, like China. Their wages will rise, they will lose market share, we will gain it - perhaps not on a time scale that Americans would like to see, but likely nonetheless.
I don't wish working people harm; most people I know are working class and my sentiments are the furthest thing from that. I suppose I wish that people who belong to labor unions would realize that they press their advantage beyond a sustainable point, and the inevitable result is decline of their influence, standard of living, and quality of life.