Opposition to trade unions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:51, 24 December 2020

Opposition to trade unions comes from a variety of groups in society and there are many different types of argument on which this opposition is based.

References

Joseph Stiglitz (2002). Employment, social justice and societal well-being International Labour Review, 141 (1–2), pp. 9–29.
Business Standard (2014). International trade unions need to be less combative,encourage more interaction with workers

Notes

External links

Thomas J. DiLorenzo (October 2004). "The free market - the union myth". The Free Market 24, No. 10 – via Mises Institute.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 {{Lead too short|date=September 2016}}
 '''Opposition to [[trade union]]s''' comes from a variety of groups in society and there are many different types of argument on which this opposition is based.
-==Left critiques of trade unionism==
-[[File:Anti-union ASF flyer.jpg|thumb|An [[anarcho-syndicalism|anarcho-syndicalist]] flyer exhorting workers to "Give Union Bosses the Flick!"]]
-The political left is often associated with support for trade unionism. However, some groups and individuals have taken a less positive view. In the nineteenth century, a belief in the [[iron law of wages]] led some socialists to reject trade unionism and strike action as ineffective. In this view, any increase in wages would lead manufacturers to raise ''prices'' leaving workers no better off in real terms. [[Karl Marx]] wrote a pamphlet, "[[Wages, Price and Profit]]", to counter this idea, which had been put forward in the [[International Workingmen's Association]] by a follower of [[Robert Owen]].
-Some early [[social democracy|Social Democrats]] were also skeptical of trade unionism. Usual criticisms were that unions split workers into sections rather than organising them as a class; that they were dominated by relatively privileged skilled workers who were mainly concerned to defend their sectional interests; and that industrial action and organisation were incapable of bringing about fundamental social change. [[H. M. Hyndman]] of the [[Social Democratic Federation]] summed up some of these views when he wrote in ''The Historical Basis of Socialism in England'' (1883):
-:"Trade Unions ... constitute an aristocracy of labour who [are] ... a hindrance to that complete organisation of the proletariat which alone can obtain for the workers their proper control over their own labour ... Being also ... unsectarian and unpolitical, they prevent any organised attempt being made by the workers as a class to form a definite party of their own, apart from existing factions, with a view to dominate the social conditions – a victory which ... can only be gained by resolute political action."
-Hyndman went on to urge workers to devote "the Trade Union funds wasted on strikes or petty funds" instead to the building up of a strong Socialist Party on the German model. Other social democrats however were more convinced than Hyndman of the utility of Trade Union action.
-Trade unionism is criticised by those of [[council communism|council communist]] and [[left communism|left communist]] tendencies.<ref>"Unions Against the Working Class", International Communist Current http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions.htm</ref> Here, trade unionism is seen as being more useful to capitalists than to workers, and as a kind of "safety-valve" that helps to keep working-class discontent within reformist channels and prevent it from evolving into revolutionary action. They consider a global state composed of [[workers' council]]s to be the ultimate union to which all workers in the world belong; unions that organize based on trade further divide the working class and act as a mechanism to allow the working class to vent concerns without actually uniting and becoming revolutionary. In contrast to other left critiques of trade unionism, these tendencies do not accept that the problems they identify could be remedied by changing the structure, leadership or objectives of trade unions. They argue that trade unionism is inherently reformist because it is sectarian and is not founded in the workplace itself and that revolutionary action is possible only if workers act outside trade unionism through [[soviet (council)|workers' councils]] or other channels.
-There is also a philosophical difference between the [[craft unionism]] of many AFL-type unions, and the [[industrial unionism]] of organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World. Industrial unionists decry a practice that they call "union scabbing," in which craft unionists are required by the no-strike clause in their contracts to cross the picket lines of other unions.<ref>''Roughneck: The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood''. Peter Carlson, 1983, p. 80.</ref>
-There is also the left critique of the tendencies of some labor unions to become [[bureaucracy|bureaucratic]] and for the union leaders and staff to become detached from the needs and interests of the [[wikt:rank and file|rank and file]] union members, in contrast to the practices of [[union democracy]]. The [[Labor Notes (organization)|Labor Notes]], in the United States, is an example of an organization that attempts to fight this bureaucratic tendency.
 == See also ==