Labor unions: very much yay. [/thread]
Also, two year necro?
edited 13th Apr '15 2:11:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Eh, I suppose it's fine. These things usually die for lack of interest, though, making the attempt to revive them pointless.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We've covered it rather thoroughly in the General Economics thread, but yes, the demonization of labor unions was a major (and highly successful) objective of the Reagan era, which saw a rapid shift away from Keynesian thought and back towards Hayek-inspired free markets, leading to massive increases in inequality.
edited 13th Apr '15 2:29:27 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think we can all agree that neither the state nor the corporations nor the labour unions should hold too much power and should be held accountable for whatever misdeeds they commit.
(And I think we can all agree that it's easier to be said than done, but hey...)
@Fighteer: What do Keynesianists (or Post-Keynesianists or Neo-Keynesianists) think about labour unions in general? I would like to hear their general position on them.
As far as I know, Keynes was pro-union, in the sense that he supported higher wages for labor and recognized that worker solidarity was one way to achieve that goal. Macroeconomically speaking, the end goal is to increase wages and working conditions to a suitable level; whether you get there through organized labor, government regulation or a combination of the two is not strictly important.
The problem with organized labor is that it can lose sight of its original purpose and become locked into its own authoritarian, self-justifying ideological bubble, especially when it gets mixed up with social conservatism.
Paul Krugman recently labeled this breed the "hard hats
", in his attempt to categorize views about social liberalism and social insurance: unionized blue-collar workers who are at the same time highly religious and xenophobic.
edited 13th Apr '15 7:20:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Unions in general are a source of inefficiency in the larger economic system, and probably depress productivity overall, yet they raise wages for unionized employees (Link
). The contentious issue is that most of the increased productivity of eliminating unions goes to upper management and share-holders, not to the employees who would have been represented by the union. So it's a trade-off: somewhat depressed GNP but with a more equitable distribution of profits, vs. a "maximized" GNP but where most of the gain is going to the 1%. This basically reduces to a political debate regarding what is best for the economy: improved consumer power (through increased wages) for lower and middle income workers, or increased investment power (through higher stock value) in the hands of venture capitalists. It's demand vs. supply-side economics. When governments pass laws and regulations that reduce the influence of unions, that's the supply-side argument winning.
Oh, and nice necro!
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Minimum wages, regulated working conditions, and income redistribution are more efficient than unionization, to be sure, but labor solidarity in and of itself is both a necessary and inevitable outcome of a system without the aforementioned niceties.
edited 13th Apr '15 8:33:46 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Because working-class voters vote for their self-interest; Unionsnote because they want stability and better wages and conditions, and they're against immigration because immigrants are seen as competitors for their jobs — and more importantly, that the major centre-left parties aren't viewed as protecting their interests any more, only that of the rich, socially-liberal, intelligentsia.
You're partially right (here in Portugal, the Communist Party, the Left Block (both on the left, not center-left) and the Greens have generally maintained ties and helped some Unions in a fairly strong connection.
Also (to address a previous point made by Fighteer), the unionized blue-collar workers (and other members of the working class) here tended to be not really religious, thanks to the Communism that spread in the mid/late-70's, after the fall of the dictatorship. The only exceptions being, for example, fishermen and other workers in very dangerous jobs.
There have been a couple of meetings here to discuss the possibility of a call center workers's union. Is it possible or not really (I assume it would make the companies relocate to South and Southeast Asia or other areas, in order to fire them and not deal with them)?
edited 14th Apr '15 7:04:59 AM by Quag15
I would say that it depends on how much support you expect from your government for your unionization. Ultimately, it's impossible to succeed at labor solidarity without a favorable political environment, or one that can be swayed to your favor.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Just to be clear, I'm not working in a call center (a couple of friends of mine are working, though).
Then, there won't be much support. The government is classical right-wing and devoted to Merkel. I've talked about them in detail in the European Debt Crisis thread already.
edited 14th Apr '15 7:46:23 AM by Quag15
Your friends are probably fucked, then. Even the slightest hint of union talk will likely be met by mass firings.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to form a trade union on the basis of the right to free assembly. The EU law cases of Laval Un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet and the ECtHR case of Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom recognize a duty to uphold Article 11 among EU and CofEUR member states in respect of trade union membership.
edited 14th Apr '15 8:12:58 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiShould've asked my brother (a lawyer) about this matter before coming here. Thanks, fellow Europeans.
My concern is less about the government, and more about the call center companies themselves. Call center companies, by nature, have tremendous power over their workers, and can fire them for seemingly innocuous stuff.
@Quag: For some reason, I brain farted about you being in Portugal and Portugal being an EU member. In that case, you have the general rules to fall back on as far as protections for labor unions, so I wouldn't be as pessimistic, but you're right that call center jobs are one of the things that can be outsourced really easily.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Now, on the topic of unions, Op-Ed by Le Monde Diplomatique:
by Serge Halimi
Why has a new report by the International Monetary Fund (1) gone mostly unremarked, given current concern about the widening inequality gap? The report, by Florence Jaumotte and Carolina Osorio Buitron, economists from this temple of neoliberalism, finds that “lower unionisation is associated with an increase in top income shares in advanced economies” between 1980 and 2010. They explain this correlation: “Weaker unions can reduce workers’ influence on corporate decisions that benefit top earners” and “increase the income share of corporate managers’ pay and shareholder returns.”
According to the report, “around a half” of the inequality gap, which neoliberals prefer to attribute to factors such as globalisation and technology, might result from the decline in labour organisations. It’s hard to be surprised. Unions have historically played a key part in the achievement of most freedoms, so their weakening can only sharpen the appetite of those who hold capital. And their disappearance creates a void quickly filled by the far right and religious fundamentalism, which divides social groups with interests that need solidarity.
The disappearance of unions is not chance or fate. In 1947, as the West was on the verge of 30 years of more evenly distributed prosperity, the neoliberal thinker Friedrich Hayek, who profoundly marked his century, drew up a guide for his political allies: “If we wish to entertain the smallest hope of a return to a free economy, restricting union power is one of the most important issues.” Hayek was then a lonely voice in the wilderness, but 50 years later, thanks to the brutal direct intervention of his admirers Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher during major labour disputes (US air traffic controllers in 1981 and British miners in 1984-5), “union power” gave up the ghost. Between 1979 and 1999, the number of strikes in the US involving at least 1,000 workers declined from 235 to 17, and the number of working days “lost” from 20 million to 2 million (2). Wages declined as a proportion of national income. In 2007, soon after being elected president, Nicolas Sarkozy passed a law restricting public sector workers’ right to strike and, in 2008, boasted like a giddy child: “Now when there’s a strike in France, no one notices.”
Logically, the IMF report should have concluded that strengthening the unions was urgent, socially and politically. Instead, it said: “Whether the rise of inequality brought about by the weakening of unions is good or bad for society remains unclear.” Those who already have some idea of the answer will have little trouble drawing the necessary conclusion.
I'm quoting it in full in case of paywall.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.