PoAC: A chicken-or-the-egg argument

[velvetpage]

"The unionized (company) had lower worker morale, always had confrontation between management and workers and used more people to do the same amount of work."

Here's the question: which came first, the adversarial management/employee relations and low worker morale, or the unionization?

What do you guys think? Is there a way to get the best of both worlds, and if so, can you give an example of it?

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

The quote is from a right-wing zealot in canpolitik with whom you are most likely familiar, who believes unions have outlived their usefulness. He was an outside observer of unionized and non-unionized forestry outfits in BC. He's often right; certainly unionized Stelco has a horrible morale and management/worker relationship, while non-unionized Dofasco had good employee relations. Generally, Stelco would fight tooth and nail and three-week strike for their contract, and as soon as they had it, Dofasco would match it without anyone asking them to. So the one played off the other, and both were necessary.

I agree that unions are still valuable to ensure that workers' rights are not eroded. To which he replied that if they didn't like the low-paying jobs, they could vote with their feet and quit. I absolutely loathe that argument. It's such a "let them eat cake" rich white guy response.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

I just read that exchange on canpolitik. I think you and I are more or less on the same page on this issue.

I think if a company tried its best to maintain a good relationship with its employees, it is often only because they fear a union being installed. In a way, that fear can be its own bargaining chip. Personally, I would rather just install a union anyway, but perhaps it amounts to the same thing in the end.

Still, Dofasco is able to favourably compete with Stelco because of the lower costs due to not having a union. I don't see why they both can't be unionized. Hell, I can't see why both can't be run by the workers themselves, but I guess I take this socialism thing a little further than most.

By the way, I'm getting a little wary of canpolitik these days. Ever since about, oh, late January or so, the place has been a little too right-wing for my tastes. The fact that the right-wing asshat above can openly advocate murdering innocent people (http://community.livejournal.com/canpolitik/426207.html?thread=12983263#t12983263) and nobody but me calls him on it is a sad testament to how far that community has fallen.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I often don't read through the threads anymore, because I know I'll see something like that and not even be able to find a place to start disagreeing. Some of the more left-leaning people haven't been around much lately, so it's getting rather lonely over there.

The other right-wing not-quite-nutjob I was in that thread with, kept complaining that "Oh noes, Americanization!!!" was taking the place of good ideas in health care. So I showed him why the American ideas were bad, what a good option would be to fix the same problem, and he acknowledged the good ideas while still claiming that my anti-American bias was getting in the way. I suppose it's the same loop of logic that allows him to believe that capitalism is inherently of benefit to everyone in an economy.

Rather than unionizing companies that treat their people well, I'd like to see more co-operatively owned ventures. They'd eliminate the manegerial relationship almost entirely, while still remaining productive, innovative and competitive. But as long as we've got capitalism, we need unions or the threat of them.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

Generally, Stelco would fight tooth and nail and three-week strike for their contract, and as soon as they had it, Dofasco would match it without anyone asking them to.And because they had lower costs still outdid Stelco without risking their own workers "voting with their feet" to Stelco or unionizing themselves.
Cynical self protective "generosity".

...he replied that if they didn't like the low-paying jobs, they could vote with their feet and quit. Then starve and decrease the surplus population.
I have crappy wages. I understand why the company doesn't (almost can't) increase them. But I could use more money. (who can't?). At 50 as far as most 30-something HR scumbags with all the power and buzzwords are concerned, I'm walking dead already. SURE I'm gonna walk out on my job. And SURE employers will milk that little fact for ALL I'm worth.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

And because they had lower costs still outdid Stelco without risking their own workers "voting with their feet" to Stelco or unionizing themselves.
Cynical self protective "generosity".

Oh, very much so. But it was a case of the end justifying the means, the end being a very content Dofasco workforce on the back of someone else's union. In the interests of not wanting a union for themselves, Dofasco management chose to eliminate the need for one. The auto industry has been doing this for decades, too, and it works there as well. It's not proof that unions aren't necessary; only proof that not all workforces need to be unionized in order for unions to do their job making workers' lives better.

...he replied that if they didn't like the low-paying jobs, they could vote with their feet and quit. Then starve and decrease the surplus population.

Exactly. How many single moms work at Walmart because that's the only place that will hire them? They don't have the skills to get anything better, no one will help them support their families long enough to train for anything better, so they're stuck in working poverty their whole lives while some idiot in government tells them that if they want more, they should take steps to improve themselves. Well, yes, they should, but who's going to help them with the rest of their lives while they do that?