can democratic public discourse replace unionism?

[lemur]

In a sense, unionism is based on a radically different principle than democratic discourse. Unionism assumes that business will always do everything in its power to exploit labor/workers and, therefore, that labor must organize to garner collective power to pursue worker interests despite resistance. This assumes that democracy can't and/or won't work to achieve fair economic practices by means of reasonable political discourse. So what do you think: can democracy do with reason and government what unions do by threat of strikes, etc.? Or are people so far beyond reason when it comes to pursuing economic interests that the only possibility for fairness comes from collectivizing people into organized unions, corporations, and other factions that pursue their own interests and agenda without regard for others beyond their scope of inclusion?

[CaptainPanic]

In a sense, unionism is based on a radically different principle than democratic discourse. Unionism assumes that business will always do everything in its power to exploit labor/workers and, therefore, that labor must organize to garner collective power to pursue worker interests despite resistance. This assumes that democracy can't and/or won't work to achieve fair economic practices by means of reasonable political discourse. So what do you think: can democracy do with reason and government what unions do by threat of strikes, etc.? Or are people so far beyond reason when it comes to pursuing economic interests that the only possibility for fairness comes from collectivizing people into organized unions, corporations, and other factions that pursue their own interests and agenda without regard for others beyond their scope of inclusion?

 

1. Unionism assumes that business will always do everything in its power to exploit labor/workers and, therefore, that labor must organize to garner collective power to pursue worker interests despite resistance.

Correct assumption. Business will in fact move entire factories to another continent if that means they can have cheaper labor.

 

2. So what do you think: can democracy do with reason and government what unions do by threat of strikes, etc.?

A union can look in detail at a single company, and a relatively small group of employees (just several hundred is not uncommon). Democratic governments make regulations for entire countries. So, logically, in certain cases the unions just have more information. Often, people working in a certain company are also union members.

 

But in fact, democracy DOES make many rules to protect employees, if they are able to apply those to the entire country. There are laws about how and when you can fire someone, about minimum wage, about minimum travel compensation, about health and safety, maximum working hours, minimum holidays, etc, etc.

[John Cuthber]

"Unionism assumes that business will always do everything in its power to exploit labor/workers "

As I understand it, US law required companies to maximise shareholder value. A simple way to do that is to exploit the workforce.

 

 

"But in fact, democracy DOES make many rules to protect employees, if they are able to apply those to the entire country. There are laws about how and when you can fire someone, about minimum wage, about minimum travel compensation, about health and safety, maximum working hours, minimum holidays, etc, etc."

And these laws sometimes get ignored. It often falls to the Unions to see that the law is enforced.

[lemur]

1. Unionism assumes that business will always do everything in its power to exploit labor/workers and, therefore, that labor must organize to garner collective power to pursue worker interests despite resistance.

Correct assumption. Business will in fact move entire factories to another continent if that means they can have cheaper labor.

 

 

Isn't this only problematized because of nationalism, though? If a business moved a factory from one region of a country to another to lower costs, wouldn't that just be considered good business sense? Economic exploitation requires generally that commodities can be sold at a high price yet be produced at a low cost. Thus it can pose a problem if you have to pay wages at a rate high enough for workers to afford their product, right? So workers actually want to be able to have more purchasing power and be exempt from less desirable labor; so their ideal is to get high paying jobs and relegate less desirable tasks/jobs to people other than themselves, no?

 

The question is what is better: 1) use unions to increase purchasing power among privileged union members and even entire national citizenries with the result of high materialist/consumerist economy or 2) use the free market to seek out increasingly cheaper labor markets where people are able to make due with less, thus rewarding those who can make due with less and putting pressure on more expensive workers to simplify their lifestyles and reduce materialism/consumerism to less burdensome levels?

 

And these laws sometimes get ignored. It often falls to the Unions to see that the law is enforced.

I have noticed that sometimes unions attempt to avoid supporting certain workers or issues. They do this because it is more work/expense for them to pursue everything and they gain bargaining power by suppressing some claims in favor of pursuing others. In practice this means that certain individuals and/or issues are not just suppressed by the business but also by the union as well. My question become thus what can be done for people/issues that are not taken up by unions? Further, what can be done about the union itself when it insists on requiring all grievances to be pursued through its channels. If a union isn't helping a certain person/cause, the business shouldn't say that the union not pursuing the issue is evidence that the issue isn't valid. In other words, I think instead of dealing with issues directly, people tend to focus on the institutional channels and other tactical issues instead of just making their case in public discourse. So unions can just be more sand that people stick their heads under instead of actually trying to resolve issues.

Edited May 2, 2011 by lemur

[John Cuthber]

"In practice this means that certain individuals and/or issues are not just suppressed by the business but also by the union as well."

Then they should join a better union or try to change the one they are in.

[CaptainPanic]

Isn't this only problematized because of nationalism, though? If a business moved a factory from one region of a country to another to lower costs, wouldn't that just be considered good business sense? Economic exploitation requires generally that commodities can be sold at a high price yet be produced at a low cost. Thus it can pose a problem if you have to pay wages at a rate high enough for workers to afford their product, right? So workers actually want to be able to have more purchasing power and be exempt from less desirable labor; so their ideal is to get high paying jobs and relegate less desirable tasks/jobs to people other than themselves, no?

 

The question is what is better: 1) use unions to increase purchasing power among privileged union members and even entire national citizenries with the result of high materialist/consumerist economy or 2) use the free market to seek out increasingly cheaper labor markets where people are able to make due with less, thus rewarding those who can make due with less and putting pressure on more expensive workers to simplify their lifestyles and reduce materialism/consumerism to less burdensome levels?

 

Your assumption that business aims to find a balance between making their products as cheap as possible and paying their workers as much as possible is false. They are not a filantropist organization that wants to provide goods to the public at the lowest possible prices or pay the highest possible wages. They wish to optimize profit. This 3rd financial outlet of a business is what it is all about, and you completely overlook that in your analysis. You approach a business as if it was a plan-economy like the Soviets had, just balancing income and expenses.

 

The real question we must first ask ourselves is how much profit can a company make before it is only fair that the workers get some of that too.

Obviously, if the place is running a loss, this is still a valid question, although then workers have to realize that by demanding more, they risk to lose their jobs altogether.

 

Take for example Apple. They had a revenue of 26 billion last quarter... and a profit of over 6 billion. Of every dollar revenue, about 22 cents was profit (going to shareholders, who in all fairness don't work very hard for that money). The Taiwan government isn't gonna set higher minimum wages, shorter working weeks and more mandatory holidays. So, would it be a bad thing to have a union step in and demand to have higher wages?

 

We're looking for a balance here. It is no black and white question.

And when we're done with that, we must ask ourselves: who can regulate that? Can companies do it themselves? Can governments? Or do we need unions?

 

Personally, I really think that unions are the only organization that really keep the interest of the workers in mind...

[lemur]

Your assumption that business aims to find a balance between making their products as cheap as possible and paying their workers as much as possible is false. They are not a filantropist organization that wants to provide goods to the public at the lowest possible prices or pay the highest possible wages. They wish to optimize profit. This 3rd financial outlet of a business is what it is all about, and you completely overlook that in your analysis. You approach a business as if it was a plan-economy like the Soviets had, just balancing income and expenses.

Where did you get this strawman about what I said?

 

The real question we must first ask ourselves is how much profit can a company make before it is only fair that the workers get some of that too.

But why is it fair for either the business OR the workers to drive up pricing and revenues so high as to exploit consumers and suppliers to elevate themselves over those "others?"

 

We're looking for a balance here. It is no black and white question.

And when we're done with that, we must ask ourselves: who can regulate that? Can companies do it themselves? Can governments? Or do we need unions?

 

Personally, I really think that unions are the only organization that really keep the interest of the workers in mind...

If investors and managers bond together in corporations to get more out of the workers and consumers, and workers bond together in unions to get more out of the corporations, should consumers also bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations? And what about suppliers that aren't incorporated into either the business or the unions? It seems to me that the practice of bonding together, either by the business-corporation or the unions, is to form a block and gain more power in demanding more money - but by doing this the burden of providing that money gets shifted to the weakest link. So, for example, if the investors and managers take a certain cut and then the workers demand a certain cut, then the only means the consumers have to demand more is to boycott products until the price goes down. If they did this successfully, the burden would be shifted back to the production side, where corporations and unions would have to fight over whose income gets cut.

 

Then my question becomes if everyone is incorporating to squeeze the most possible out of someone else, what happens to the power of individuals who don't want to defer to the authority of their ascribed interest-representative? I.e. what happens to managers/investors who don't want to work for corporations, workers who don't want to obey unions, and consumers who don't want to follow orders in collectivizing their consumption choices? Do they all get marginalized and sanctioned until they join a collective and self-censor their independent-thought and free-will in subordination to collective authority?

 

 

edit: to put this another way - consider the difference between the status of the independent worker in democracy vs. in unionism. In unionism, individual workers must comply with union rules to gain union protection. If union-membership is required for participation in a certain profession, the union can actually exclude workers from work if they dissent from union-support. In democracy, independent-minded workers are free to dissent from union-supporters and their opinions may still be taken account in policy-making. Someone may not favor unionism generally but still favor wage-standardization so that they don't get paid a lower wage than those with collective-bargaining, for example. Or maybe a certain individual thinks people should be able to accept as low of wages as they want, but they support policies that limit opening times and work-scheduling. In policy, such individuals have more of a voice than with unions that view unincorporated workers as enemies of collective solidarity.

Edited May 3, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

Where did you get this strawman about what I said?

You seemed to suggest that business in general would either pay people well so that they can afford their products, or pay less, and logically sell less products. But this is not true.

 

Any money that is not given to workers can become profit. And that money is also given to people (investors). And workers and investors are both consumers... so even if you give nothing to your workers (literally keep them as slaves) and therefore a lot to your investors, you will still have a market to sell your products.

 

If investors and managers bond together in corporations to get more out of the workers and consumers, and workers bond together in unions to get more out of the corporations, should consumers also bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations? And what about suppliers that aren't incorporated into either the business or the unions? It seems to me that the practice of bonding together, either by the business-corporation or the unions, is to form a block and gain more power in demanding more money - but by doing this the burden of providing that money gets shifted to the weakest link. So, for example, if the investors and managers take a certain cut and then the workers demand a certain cut, then the only means the consumers have to demand more is to boycott products until the price goes down. If they did this successfully, the burden would be shifted back to the production side, where corporations and unions would have to fight over whose income gets cut.

Seems like a pretty accurate description of reality. Everybody is indeed concerned only with optimizing their own financial situation.

 

Btw, consumers already bond together in "consumer organizations" to protect their interests. ... and consumers obviously have a free choice to buy or not to buy. And consumers have a vote in the democracy which can change policy.

 

Then my question becomes if everyone is incorporating to squeeze the most possible out of someone else, what happens to the power of individuals who don't want to defer to the authority of their ascribed interest-representative? I.e. what happens to managers/investors who don't want to work for corporations, workers who don't want to obey unions, and consumers who don't want to follow orders in collectivizing their consumption choices? Do they all get marginalized and sanctioned until they join a collective and self-censor their independent-thought and free-will in subordination to collective authority?

In some cases, you can live outside the system... but it gets harder and harder.

Luckily, there are still plenty of choices. Personally, I think the most important is what you do for a living. A responsible choice for your professional career can make a difference.

edit: to put this another way - consider the difference between the status of the independent worker in democracy vs. in unionism. In unionism, individual workers must comply with union rules to gain union protection. If union-membership is required for participation in a certain profession, the union can actually exclude workers from work if they dissent from union-support. In democracy, independent-minded workers are free to dissent from union-supporters and their opinions may still be taken account in policy-making. Someone may not favor unionism generally but still favor wage-standardization so that they don't get paid a lower wage than those with collective-bargaining, for example. Or maybe a certain individual thinks people should be able to accept as low of wages as they want, but they support policies that limit opening times and work-scheduling. In policy, such individuals have more of a voice than with unions that view unincorporated workers as enemies of collective solidarity.

I think that union membership is always voluntary. But you do run the risk that your interests are not as strongly protected... you will not be invited to union meetings where they discuss the plans if there is any dispute between the union and a management. You can however act as a single individual. But don't be surprised if management doesn't have time to discuss the future plans with every individual employee.

[Moontanman]

In a capitalist society everyone needs leverage, if you don't have it you get screwed by those who do have it. Humans are too greedy to live in a capitalist society without some fort of leverage against those with power.

 

We as humans are also too self centered to live in a purely communist society, it's just a sad truth, we need both collectivization and capitalism to give everyone the potential to be all they can be, doesn't assure this will happen but it ups the odds of a successful society IMHO...

[Marat]

Lemur: From the way you phrased your OP I have the feeling you are deriving your idea from Habermas' now popular resort to 'discourse theory' as a way to solve social problems. The idea is that requiring an open, rational, courteous discussion with input from all stakeholders will ensure that all reasonable points of view will be equally respected, thus producing a just outcome. But I think discourse theory is essentially just an impractical idealism, since most conversations among people with strongly-held and sometimes unreasonable interests they cannot or will not abandon will simply end in deadlock. Habermas and his many fans today seem to think that just by spreading over any problem the soothing patina of 'discourse theory' the problems will somehow be dissolved, but in fact, that process will often just bring the irreconcilable disputes to light.

 

Since both capitalists and unions are ultimately just self-interested, and each would gladly see the other extinguished, how can discourse between them settle disputes? Pure power has to come into the equation before anything will move.

[lemur]

Any money that is not given to workers can become profit. And that money is also given to people (investors). And workers and investors are both consumers... so even if you give nothing to your workers (literally keep them as slaves) and therefore a lot to your investors, you will still have a market to sell your products.

The funny thing about slavery, imo, is that if you really reduce what you give the slaves to practically nothing (and yet they survive), they discover that they don't need you. This is different from wage laborers who are convinced that they absolutely cannot survive without their jobs and pay, so they actually desire subjugation to your authority in order to nurture their dependency on what you give them.

 

Btw, consumers already bond together in "consumer organizations" to protect their interests. ... and consumers obviously have a free choice to buy or not to buy. And consumers have a vote in the democracy which can change policy.

Less than you think. Look at how many people grumble about inflation. Presumably most of those people have products they could cut out of their shopping cart, at least occasionally, and this would be quite similar to workers going on strike or investors selling stock in terms of affecting the production process. Yet how often do you hear of consumer boycotts as compared with how often you hear of striking workers or investor sell-offs?

 

I think that union membership is always voluntary. But you do run the risk that your interests are not as strongly protected... you will not be invited to union meetings where they discuss the plans if there is any dispute between the union and a management. You can however act as a single individual. But don't be surprised if management doesn't have time to discuss the future plans with every individual employee.

As I understand it, there are "right to work states" where it is illegal to require workers to join a union as a condition of their employment - and I assumed this meant that there are other states where such a requirement IS legal. I assume this means that you have to submit to union authority and rules regarding your labor participation or you won't be allowed to work.

 

In a capitalist society everyone needs leverage, if you don't have it you get screwed by those who do have it. Humans are too greedy to live in a capitalist society without some fort of leverage against those with power.

Technically, everyone has leverage as an individual until other individuals organize and find ways to shun or otherwise manipulate uncooperative individuals to meet their expectations/demands. So, yes collective techniques of leverage develop and evolve, but I think they also evolve increasing problems as they continually meet a more powerful match. It's like when you start picking fights around the school yard and at first you find that you get to dominate the jungle gym, but then a gang of bullies comes and wrests it from you, so you go and find a bigger gang of tougher bullies and retake it, sending those guys off to fortify their ranks and show YOU who's boss, etc. etc.

 

We as humans are also too self centered to live in a purely communist society, it's just a sad truth, we need both collectivization and capitalism to give everyone the potential to be all they can be, doesn't assure this will happen but it ups the odds of a successful society IMHO...

You're juxtaposing communism/altruism with collectivism, but that is a misleading dichotomy since what I'm talking about is individualism vs. collectivism, where individuals negotiate and engage each other's power without bonding together in collectives, which requires their suppressing their individual will in order to support group-authority, right?

 

 

Lemur: From the way you phrased your OP I have the feeling you are deriving your idea from Habermas' now popular resort to 'discourse theory' as a way to solve social problems. The idea is that requiring an open, rational, courteous discussion with input from all stakeholders will ensure that all reasonable points of view will be equally respected, thus producing a just outcome. But I think discourse theory is essentially just an impractical idealism, since most conversations among people with strongly-held and sometimes unreasonable interests they cannot or will not abandon will simply end in deadlock. Habermas and his many fans today seem to think that just by spreading over any problem the soothing patina of 'discourse theory' the problems will somehow be dissolved, but in fact, that process will often just bring the irreconcilable disputes to light.

 

Since both capitalists and unions are ultimately just self-interested, and each would gladly see the other extinguished, how can discourse between them settle disputes? Pure power has to come into the equation before anything will move.

When is power more or less "pure?" Anyway, it sounds like Habermas' idea is about discourse devoid of power. I like Foucault's quote that democracy is war by other means. I also like the fact that Foucault viewed power in terms of "microphysics," which emphasizes the power-engagments that take place at the (inter)individual level, even within apparently solid organizations/collectives. People are always vying for individual power in various ways, including through forming bonds and preaching collective solidarity. I dislike unionism for this reason, although I have no problem discussing issues with unionists when they focus on actual topics instead of the importance of social solidarity, which is imo nothing more than telling me to stop thinking critically and go with the flow of the herd. Obviously people not only don't always listen - they actively block out listening and obfuscate discourse when they feel it is going in a direction not in their favor. Still, I think this ultimately ends up costing them their credibility and politics always moves in the direction of truth-seeking because there are always interests that want to cut through BS because they are pursuing an agenda that doesn't thrive amid BS and obfuscation. Maybe this is too optimistic, though.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, the thread's sub title "reason vs. collective interest" is a false dichotomy.

Collective interest is entirely reasonable.

 

 

"should consumers also bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations? "

Isn't that group of consumers called "purchasing power". Isn't it the way in which, for example, Wallmart demand price reductions from suppliers?

I realise it's not organised with that intention in mind, but isn't it the effective outcome?

[lemur]

Incidentally, the thread's sub title "reason vs. collective interest" is a false dichotomy.

Collective interest is entirely reasonable.

If what you mean to say is that it is reasonable to submit to collective authority over your individual will, that effectively alienates you from your will to reason as an individual. I've literally seen unionism be used to "reason" to people that they are simply powerless and no one will listen to them if they don't join the union and allow someone else to fight for their interests. This is not to say that individuals don't reason with each other about unionism and about union policies and goals, etc. It's just that there is also this culture within unionism of claiming that individuals or workers as a class are relatively powerless or subjugated so they have to fight to get all they can by banding together and not allowing the opposition to reason with them because that is just a tactic to exploit them. When people start believing these kinds of logics, they trade in reasonable discourse for tactical activity designed to manipulate the other into giving you what you want.

 

"should consumers also bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations? "

Isn't that group of consumers called "purchasing power". Isn't it the way in which, for example, Wallmart demand price reductions from suppliers?

I realise it's not organised with that intention in mind, but isn't it the effective outcome?

You see Walmart as a buyer's club? My view of Walmart is that it does indeed negotiate lower prices in the way you say, but it also prevents competition that could lower prices potentially further, thus setting a price-floor that other 'competitors' can use as a stable market-position indicator. Imagine if every few weeks a new business popped up and undercut your prices so significantly that you lost all your sales if you didn't immediately match prices. Walmart prevents this from happening by establishing itself as a low-price leader and other large stable companies make sure not to undercut Walmart's prices so as not to start a price war.

 

Consumers could bond together to organize direct purchases that "cut out the middleman" of distributors/retailers altogether. They could also lobby government to break up large corporations like Walmart in a way that preserves economies of scale and makes them compete against each other to result in even lower prices. They could also maintain websites that tell which products were of inferior quality and why. The problem is that businesses would use such websites to deter potential customers away from their competition.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

You seem not to realise that Unions are made up of their members. They are reasonable democratic. A union that stopped representing people wouldn't survive. It can ignore the plight of a few for the sake of the many, but before long that "few" decide to form their own interest group.

 

"My view of Walmart is that it does indeed negotiate lower prices in the way you say, but it also prevents competition that could lower prices potentially further, thus setting a price-floor that other 'competitors' can use as a stable market-position indicator."

 

Wouldn't "consumers (who) bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations?" do the same?

 

"Consumers could bond together to organize direct purchases that "cut out the middleman" of distributors/retailers altogether."

They sometimes do, but generally they can't be bothered.

Sure, I could organise a "Farmer's market" and get my food cheaper; but is it worth my while?

If I decide to do it then it will only work if I persuade others to buy there to. If I do that am I not just another shop?

 

"They could also lobby government to break up large corporations like Walmart in a way that preserves economies of scale and makes them compete against each other to result in even lower prices. "

 

They did.

But does anyone know why there's only one monopolies and mergers commission?

[lemur]

You seem not to realise that Unions are made up of their members. They are reasonable democratic. A union that stopped representing people wouldn't survive. It can ignore the plight of a few for the sake of the many, but before long that "few" decide to form their own interest group.

That has not been my experience with academic work. My impression is that many many people get degrees and get told that a degree is no guarantee of getting a job and "get lost." It is logical that academia has to produce more graduates than hires, because that makes it possible for people to repay student loans using non-academic moneys. So if academic unions supported every graduate student's right to academic work and pay, all the money would have to come from taxes, grants, and tuition. Since we are constantly told how scarce all those funding sources are, and how competitive academic job markets are, people come to accept the idea that academia is a lottery where only an elite few will get jobs and even fewer will gain tenure. It is ironic to me that despite this, many academics still maintain avid union support; as if to say, "protect my right to fire practically everyone else climbing my corporate ladder."

 

Wouldn't "consumers (who) bond together to get lower prices out of the corporations?" do the same?

Hopefully they would just look for continually greater means of lowering costs and increasing efficiency. Ideally they would work voluntarily (they already shop voluntarily unless their family pays them a salary as homemaker). Then, by cutting out the buildings, management, personnel, etc. they could theoretically reduce their spending to a fraction of what it is buying retail. Of course, the problem is that many homemakers would rather have a nice store to shop in (preferably one that's prettier than Walmart) and they're willing to pay more because the budget they're working with is high due to union protection. Now ask the homemaker whose budget is low due to union exclusion whether s/he would rather cut out the middleman and buy more for less money and I think s/he would want to.

 

Sure, I could organise a "Farmer's market" and get my food cheaper; but is it worth my while?

If I decide to do it then it will only work if I persuade others to buy there to. If I do that am I not just another shop?

Exactly, because you have the privilege of a union/government-protected wage. People without that are poor and would gladly organize a farmer's market if it would mean they could afford better clothes or make house repairs, etc.

 

They did.

But does anyone know why there's only one monopolies and mergers commission?

Because all the others merged into one and became a monopoly?