Is it time for unions to evolve?

nesf

Mostly coming from this Economist article: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278297

Is it time for unions to evolve and adapt to a more flexible labour market? Should unions set themselves up as not a protector of jobs but as a group that makes it easier for its members to find a new job if they lose their present one? I agree with the union leader in the article who says the era of a "job for life" is gone by and large. Perhaps it's time for unions to move on too?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cyclopath2001

A parallel question would be "Is it time for employers to evolve?". Instead of shareholder profit, should customer service and the provision of gainful employment in the community be the highest priority?

nesf

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A parallel question would be "Is it time for employers to evolve?". Instead of shareholder profit, should customer service and the provision of gainful employment in the community be the highest priority?

How would that work in pragmatic terms?

Lemming

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A parallel question would be "Is it time for employers to evolve?". Instead of shareholder profit, should customer service and the provision of gainful employment in the community be the highest priority?

Employer evolution is called "continued existence" in a free-market economy. If your company cannot evolve to meet change when it presents itself, the company is ultimately going to fail because it cannot "evolve" to meet new circumstances.

It's disingenuous to claim that employers need to evolve on this particular point. Of course, you'll always find the manager here or company there where treatment of employees is poor, but that's that. The employee choice was to seek a new job - ultimately such companies would find it difficult to retain good staff if the company structure is so rotten to the core.

The unions by contrast are inflexible and simply demand x, y, and z, for their continued work based on the view that people are not going to move jobs if unhappy.

Do I think unions should go? No, they serve a purpose but they need to re-evaluate their traditional viewpoints which are horrendously out of date if current carry-on is anything to go by. Bad employers misbehaving are covered by employment law where applicable.

Dannyboy83

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A parallel question would be "Is it time for employers to evolve?". Instead of shareholder profit, should customer service and the provision of gainful employment in the community be the highest priority?

Wouldn't that be like a social service?

Why would a person (willingly) do that ?

cyclopath2001

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Wouldn't that be like a social service?

Why would a person (willingly) do that ?

It's called civilisation.

Dannyboy83

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's called civilisation.

I think a large chunk of the planet would disagree, they see it as the death of civilisation. (Not me necessarily but a huge chunk of the US detest European Socialisim)

cyclopath2001

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I think a large chunk of the planet would disagree, they see it as the death of civilisation. (Not me necessarily but a huge chunk of the US detest European Socialisim)

A huge chunk of the US don't know where Europe is, let alone what it is.

nesf

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's called civilisation.

In pragmatic terms what do you mean? More rigid labour markets through making it more difficult for companies to fire staff? How do you emphasise job creation over profit?

An interesting article comparing different types of labour markets as practised in different countries: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278217

Of particular note is how more rigid labour market practices (such as those in France and Japan) that make firing workers very difficult/expensive have led to large scale hiring of temporary staff who don't enjoy the privileges of their permanent staff colleagues. Is this desirable? Inflexibility in the labour market hurts workers as much as companies (i.e. you're fine so long as you have a job, but if you're trying to get one it is very difficult because companies cannot afford to hire many extra staff when getting rid of them if the work dries up costs so much).

DadaKopf

nesf wrote:

Is it time for unions to evolve and adapt to a more flexible labour market?

The Party of European Socialists (EU Parliament Socialist Party) officially endorse the 'flexicurity' model adopted by Denmark. That in return for labour market 'flexibility' (greater capacity for companies to hire and fire), states and employers must ensure 'security' (new forms of social insurance to offset the negative consequences of more flexibility). It's something I agree with, and I think many unions do, too. But is the government into it? Ireland could really lead the way on this.

ArphaRima

Nonsense.

Unions are there to protect the interests of their members. Whether they be short or long term interests. The executive of a union gets voted in on promises to its members. They dont get voted in promising flexibility to the company!

They get voted in for protecting jobs, reducing working hours, increasing leave and inflating pay.

The interests of the company and the interests of the union memebers are generally in opposition.
The only time this changes is when the company is closing down or threatening to outsource.

When you lose your job you lose your union. Ostensibly they already have programs to help in getting new jobs, but to be fair, they dont get any subscriptions from the unemployed. Or votes for that matter.
I cant see it.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote: »

The Party of European Socialists (EU Parliament Socialist Party) officially endorse the 'flexicurity' model adopted by Denmark. That in return for labour market 'flexibility' (greater capacity for companies to hire and fire), states and employers must ensure 'security' (new forms of social insurance to offset the negative consequences of more flexibility). It's something I agree with, and I think many unions do, too. But is the government into it? Ireland could really lead the way on this.

I think there's room for compromise here which is being is being pushed aside by hardliners on both sides of the employer/union divide. Essentially I see a big future for unions in modern flexible labour markets as being there to help employees switch careers or move to a find work. Companies need to be able to hire and fire with "relatively" few strings attached. Booms in sales might prove temporary and companies should be able to expand and trim their workforce as needed. Converse to this is that employees need to be helped adjusting to finding work again and there is huge scope for unions to step in here.

I think that a system where we pay union dues to a union which can then help us out when we become unemployed is a better system than turning it over to the Government to handle. Better to keep this kind of thing independent imho.

ArphaRima

I think that a system where we pay union dues to a union which can then help us out when we become unemployed

I dont think I'd continue to be a member of any union that allowed me to become unemployed. What's the point?
I already pay social insurance thanks.

I think what you're actually saying is wouldnt it be great if employers could hire and fire employees at will; without consequence..

oscarBravo

fluffer wrote: »

They get voted in for protecting jobs, reducing working hours, increasing leave and inflating pay.

Sometimes those aims are mutually exclusive, and Irish unions don't seem to have any idea how to balance them, so they simply pretend they can deliver all of them.

The interests of the company and the interests of the union memebers are generally in opposition.

That's the single biggest problem I have with trade unions - their ingrained perception that the employer is the enemy.

As an employer, I see employment as a symbiotic relationship. My employees are not my enemies, nor I theirs. My business can't exist without them, and they don't have a job without me. [1] As soon as a union enters the picture and starts framing that relationship in oppositional terms, the symbiosis is gone and everyone loses out.

If I thought a union was capable of recognising that symbiosis and working to enhance it to everyone's benefit, I'd be happy to deal with that union. I have yet to see any sign of a union ever seeing things that way.


[1] Of course, I can get different employees, and they can get a different job - but in general terms, this is how I view employer/employee relationships.

ArphaRima

they simply pretend they can deliver all of them.

Unions are a lesson in politics.

If I thought a union was capable of recognising that symbiosis and working to enhance it to everyone's benefit, I'd be happy to deal with that union. I have yet to see any sign of a union ever seeing things that way.

It's impossible. Your goals and theirs are different. You want to run a business, and benefit from it. They only need to benefit from it.
How can the relationship be anything but oppositional? They are engaging in collective bargaining. Sometimes with the threat of industrial action. They couldnt care less if it impacts your expansion plans, increases your cost base or reduces efficiency. They already have the job. They just need to enhance the renumeration package.
As an employer dont forget that.

Back to the OP's suggestion though. Unions do not create jobs, they protect them, and improve them. Sometimes to the greater detriment of the workers an industry. ie General Motors etc.

sovtek

[QUOTE=donegalfella;59448546

In the USA, the United Auto Workers union has come close to strangling the entire U.S. automobile industry, which has become heavily dependent on public subsidies for its continued survival. Companies such as GM cannot compete with the likes of Toyota, which are producing better cars at a lower cost in nonunionised plants.

If the U.S. auto industry folds, which seems inevitable, we have an instance of the unions killing the goose that laid the golden eggs—at huge public cost. Surely this is an instance in which we'd be much better off without unions?[/QUOTE]

You may not realize this but every car maker in the world is heavily subsidized.
It's a stretch to blame the unions for "strangling" when the total labour cost of a car is a small percentage of its price tag (around $2k IIRC). It's more likely that GM's problems are because of management still cranking out SUV's instead of fuel efficient, smaller cars.
The Japanese car makers are also unionised in their own country (as well as heavily subsidized)...so you can't say it's the unions that are making them less competative. The Japanese are just better at making them...and have been consistantly for the past three decades.

nesf

fluffer wrote: »

I think what you're actually saying is wouldnt it be great if employers could hire and fire employees at will; without consequence..

No, the relationship between unions and employers does not need to be adversarial.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

No, the relationship between unions and employers does not need to be adversarial.

Agreed. My father works for a large employer and has regular dealings with unions. He's actually quite complimentary of them (and he's not a socialist). The company needs to make pay cuts and, rather than immediate scream for industrial action, they're willing to engage in dialogue about how best to approach things in a manner that realises cuts are necessary.

On the other hand, I've heard hate-filled voices when talking about the bosses in the CS and an immediate "us vs them" attitude.

The difference being the former shows how unions can be used constructively to both look after workers but also protect the company because ensuring the company is successful, in the end, is also in the interest of the worker - and not just going for short term victories.

ArphaRima

rather than immediate scream for industrial action, they're willing to engage in dialogue about how best to approach things

I've heard hate-filled voices when talking about the bosses in the CS and an immediate "us vs them" attitude.

2 Very different situations I believe.
The CS unions are not in fear for their jobs. They are in a strong position and they know it. The government/their management have limited scope for exerting pressure. Their unions can bring the entire country to its knees overnight, and topple governments.

A company in dire financial times is another thing altogether. People are in fear for their jobs. They are willing to make monetary sacrifices to protect their employment. If they strike, the company could fold. Hence constructive discussions.

nesf

fluffer wrote: »

A company in dire financial times is another thing altogether. People are in fear for their jobs. They are willing to make monetary sacrifices to protect their employment. If they strike, the company could fold. Hence constructive discussions.

This is essentially what I'm getting at. The employees' and employer's interests coincide a lot of the time. A "healthy" company that's turning a decent profit each year is more likely to be still around next year. If market conditions suddenly change then it's in employees' interest to trim the workforce sometimes. Better to save some jobs than all.

The thing is that the union in this instance shouldn't just negotiate the best deal for the restructuring but also help those who have to be left go to find new work.

ixoy

nesf wrote: »

The thing is that the union in this instance shouldn't just negotiate the best deal for the restructuring but also help those who have to be left go to find new work.

I'm assuming you don't mean financial help but instead maybe pointing them in the direction of new job opportunities? Would you see them acting as a sort of recruitment agency, with stronger focus on areas related to the union? Or would it be more in the direction of upskilling the members, with subsidised training courses?

nesf

ixoy wrote: »

I'm assuming you don't mean financial help but instead maybe pointing them in the direction of new job opportunities? Would you see them acting as a sort of recruitment agency, with stronger focus on areas related to the union? Or would it be more in the direction of upskilling the members, with subsidised training courses?

Yes. Providing advice and information on options available to people. Using their market power to negotiate cheaper retraining and/or courses for people needing to upskill or change profession etc as well as for people who just want to upskill while they still have jobs.

KerranJast

Our membership of the EU and its various protections for workers rights has made the need for union membership almost redundant if you'll pardon the pun. Unions in the present seem only to achieve results in highly monopolised areas where the threat of strikes can impact severly on public services.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes and no. Fás doesn't cover upskilling in a lot of different areas.

sovtek

KerranJast wrote: »

Our membership of the EU and its various protections for workers rights has made the need for union membership almost redundant if you'll pardon the pun. Unions in the present seem only to achieve results in highly monopolised areas where the threat of strikes can impact severly on public services.

You are aware that those various protections were brought about by the unions. Do you think they will last if unions go away.
You need to merely look across the Atlantic to see what happens when they do.

ixoy

sovtek wrote: »

You are aware that those various protections were brought about by the unions. Do you think they will last if unions go away.

Aren't they enshrined in law by now? Do you think they'd be repealed if union power was curtailed?

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

You are aware that those various protections were brought about by the unions. Do you think they will last if unions go away.
You need to merely look across the Atlantic to see what happens when they do.

Indeed, before there was unions the need for them was very great but they've achieved a lot and much of what they were needed to fight for is law now.

sovtek

nesf wrote: »

Indeed, before there was unions the need for them was very great but they've achieved a lot and much of what they were needed to fight for is law now.

The need is every present and necessary. America proves that beyond doubt.

sovtek

ixoy wrote: »

Aren't they enshrined in law by now? Do you think they'd be repealed if union power was curtailed?

They would slowly but surely be repealed if union power was curtailed. Its going on even now. The initiation of NERA itself was to weaken Irish labour law.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

The need is every present and necessary. America proves that beyond doubt.

This isn't the States though.

sovtek

nesf wrote: »

This isn't the States though.

It's near enough to be a warning to anyone niave enought to think that unions arent necessary anymore and that corporations aren't constantly working with politicians to put downward pressure on workers.

nesf

sovtek wrote: »

It's near enough to be a warning to anyone niave enought to think that unions arent necessary anymore and that corporations aren't constantly working with politicians to put downward pressure on workers.

Got any examples to back up your point?

ArphaRima

A union has no place in training people, upskilling or anything like that. They are in the business of protecting existing fee-paying members welfare and renumeration. What would be the advantage on spending members money so that individuals could "upskill" and leave said union?

Nor are they a recruitment agency.