A man is forced, against his will, to join an organisation. If he does not, he loses his job and is thrown onto the dole.
Is this justifiable? Because this is the undeniable truth behind any idea of a closed shop: You join the union and if you do not, you lose your job. Many are critical of this, but I would say that this is justifiable. A man working in a unionised workplace is protected by the collective bargaining agreements regardless of whether he is a union member. I argue that by working in a unionised workplace the man has already forsaken his right to not be a member of a union. I argue that a worker in a unionised workplace who is not a member of a union is the typical 'free-rider' of economists. But, these two statements must be tempered and a closed shop must have effective and regular checks and safeguards.
To be specific about what I mean about a closed shop, I am using the British usage. That is, unlike in America, it is not required that you are already a member of a union to get the job. Rather, if you get a job in a workplace with a closed shop, you are expected to join the union or at least fund the union's activities.
The essential problem with not having a closed shop in a unionised workplace is that some workers can benefit by not paying union dues whilst still reaping the benefits of the union's activities. If a union has 60% density in a single workplace and negotiates a 4% increase in wages or a decrease in working hours of an hour a day - this does not just apply to the 60% of the workforce who are in the trade union. This collective bargaining agreement applies to all workers. So if the non-unionised workers who do not support the activities of the union are benefiting, should they not be supporting the union that benefits them?
It is the free-rider problem in it's purest sense.
The question is then, how can you manage the closed shop? I would place two requirements in order for there to be a closed shop allowed: Firstly, the workforce as a whole, not just the union members, must consistently (as in yearly) vote for it. Secondly, a certain percentage of the workforce must be a member of the union in question before the vote can take place. To be more specific I would say that the majority voting for a closed shop needs to be a qualified majority (say 70%) and the union density should be at least 30%. This would prevent using the closed shop as a tactic to quickly spread trade union membership without the leg-work that is not only usually involved but which should be involved in getting members. This would also prevent situations where a sizeable minority of workers do not feel the union acts in their interests from being forced to join it.
The point of a closed shop is not to force a minority who do not feel well represented by the union to join that union but instead it is to force a few who are well represented by the union to contribute to their representation. Anyone who would use the closed shop to enforce a union's institutional power and not to ensure that a union can properly conduct its work has a fundamentally wrong attitude to workplace relations.
Unions are only effective if they are, for the vast majority of members, a voluntary issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"I argue that by working in a unionised workplace the man has already forsaken his right to not be a member of a union."
Supposing this is true, what is wrong with the statement:
"A man working in a workplace that pays below the minimum wage/union demanded wage has already forsaken his right to be paid a higher wage"?
You seem to accept that choosing where to work is a consensual - not a forced - arrangement, but this doesn't just lead us to conclude that closed shops are acceptable, but that any contractual arrangement is acceptable. It destroys the foundations on which socialism is based.
The problem is, a union as we understand it in the west is an organisation that can strike - ie. breach its contract - with no consequences - ie. the penalties for not abiding by the contract as set out in the contract (usually the employer being able to choose to make the 'striker' redundant).
If we were to take your line consistently - that is, make contracts sovereign in any agreement between individuals - then no liberal (or "capitalist" if you prefer) would disagree that the closed shop is acceptable... but unions would also not be able to enforce them on employers except in very rare circumstances (eg. factory towns, where this would actually serve the market beneficially as a counter-weight to lack of competition between employers).
This would really be very beneficial. Instead of there being a power imbalance in favour of employees, which more often than not causes them to greedily destroy their employers' long-term future for the sake of short-term gain, there would be a balance of power. Employees would only be able to strike when they really were being treated unfairly - ie. when the employer would be unable to replace the work-force on lower terms than those demanded if he fired them.
...but I suppose you don't like the sound of that?
Post a Comment