Trade unions have political spokesmen. They have organising committees dedicated to political campaigns. In the US, they have Political Action Committees. They also have a huge affect on the Democratic Party platform. In other countries, they literally have “Labour” political parties, some of which have decision making rights enshrined in law. Labour unions may not be officially one of the two registered political parties that dominate the US political system. However, they’re political parties in the same way as any other group hoping to achieve their goals by political means.
My opinion is that trade unions are far more interested in political objectives than in benefitting their members. Although their first interest is in ensuring their membership fees are maintained, which is why some union backers seek to support the flagrantly undemocratic idea of a closed shop union.
Sometimes they are. At least, sometimes the union is paid a sum directly by the employer and then handles individual payroll to the union members for time worked which may involve multiple employers.
Does that now make it all OK? Are we now allowed to restrict the freedom of employees by processing paperwork?
Let me tie it back to the union discussion for you. And I would stress that I support your particular union, and for the most part, unions in general. Where I take exception is when they become bloated self-serving bureaucracies that threaten the public interest and become so powerful that even the government can’t control them. That may not be the case where you are, where unions are endangered and under political attack, but I assure you that it definitely is the case where unions thrive like invasive weeds and overpower everything.
The donuts example reminds me of when I was doing an IT consulting gig for the automation of a manufacturing plant. I’ve always been involved in academia and research, and this was my first time in a blue-collar environment. At one point I needed to move a server from one room to another, and so I just stood it up on an office chair and wheeled it out. The manager came running out shouting at me! Apparently it was absolutely forbidden for anyone not a member of a certain union (the “moving things around union”, or whatever it may have been) to engage in such a task. His wrath was actually justified inasmuch as, if I had been observed, the whole lot of this particular union would probably have gone out on strike.
Suffice to say that I was very happy to eventually get back to a world of sanity, where I could pick something up from one room and take it to another without causing a union-inspired calamity.
Political parties contest elections under a shared name and manifesto. Their purpose is not to influence political decisions, but to literally be the people who make those decisions by direct exercise of political power.
Unions, charities, churches, industry bodies, consumer groups etc. can seek to influence politics through lobbying, donation and yes, even affiliation with political parties. They don’t stand candidates for election, they don’t enact legislation and they are not political parties. These two sentences are not contradictory.
Are you sure the union handles payroll ? There are plenty of situations (usually situations where the worker has a lot of short term employers - such as actors or people in the trades) where the union administers health insurance or pensions and the various employers send contributions to the union but I’ve never heard of it being done for payroll.
Employers seek to balance costs against revenues and risks. If a fast food restaurant could pay its employees $1/hour, and could find a market of employees who would work for $1/hour, they would choose to do so. That’s not anti-labour. It’s actually pro-labour. It’s employing the most needy. However, the wage elasticity for low-paid jobs is pretty inelastic, historically. That leads to a minimum wage to handle the imbalance between the revenue achieved from low wage earners versus the cost of their wages. Where that imbalance doesn’t exist, low wage earners receive market wages that may not be all that low.
Unions seek to capture a portion of the labour market and exclude entrants into that market. A train station attendant can learn his job in half a day. Thousands of people in the UK would jump at the chance to earn the wage of a train station attendant. However, they’re denied that chance because of collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements don’t benefit the labour market, they benefit the employees who are able to hold the system hostage by refusing to provide the service they’re being paid to provide.
The Deputy Leader of the Leader Party would disagree that only political parties enact legislation?
She joined a union. She also joined a political party and stood for election! I think she can quite clearly see the exact point that politcal parties do political things - really important political things - that unions don’t and that this distinction matters.
Come on! Words mean things. Unions are politically active and influential bodies - yes. Unions have close, often very close, ties to left-wing political parties - yes. Unions are political parties - no.
Obviously they’re not, but it’s less obvious why that should matter: what’s relevant is that both associations have formed a contractual agreement with an employer that limits the employer’s labor pool.
This is a great example of why I hate using the word “opinion” to describe falsifiable statements. To the extent that that’s your opinion, your opinion is wrong. If you disagree, please provide the rigorous evidence to support it.
None of what you said had anything to do with the closed shop/union shop/exclusivity conversation in which the example arose, so I’m not going to address it.
So . . . she wouldn’t disagree?
Look: you’re simply wrong on whether unions are political parties, and that’s a huge distraction from the thread.
When my point is that employers should not be able to make union membership a condition of employment. That’s why it matters.
In the strictest sense of the word they are not “political parties” but they are certainly political entities in many places and very closely affiliated to political parties.
They exist in the gap between “apolitical organisation” and “political party” with the pendulum swinging to differing degrees in different places. It is a standard position to hold and hardly worth commenting on, it is pretty much assumed.
If you want unions to be treated in discussions as just the same as an apolitical company or employment agency then discussing some of the ways in which they are political entities seems very far from a distraction.
The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament.
If you’re saying that labour unions are not intrinsically tied to political parties, I disagree with you.
I’m not wrong.
Also in Canada. I’ve not heard the term “post-entry closed shop” used. “Closed shop” requires union membership before being hired. “Union shop” requires joining the union after being hired.
I think “post-entry closed shop” is not an accurate descriptor.
Train station attendant salary starts at £17K/year, rising to £27K.
£17K is below the 10th percentile of gross earnings in the UK. More than 90% of people make more money than this!
£27K is c. the 33rd percentile.
But more to the point,
In what specific way are collective bargaining agreements preventing people from earning the wage agreed through collective bargaining? Who is being stopped from applying for a train station attendant job and why?
Do such things exist? Most companies are quite willing to engage in political activism any time a proposal comes up that might affect them.
See any discussion of raising the minimum wage for a common example. Or a proposal to change the labour statutes to make it easier for unions to unionise a workplace.
And my experience is that many smaller companies belong to the local or provincial Chamber of Commerce or the Taxpayers’ Federation, to allow the larger umbrella body to participate in political debates that affect their members.
If companies and employers are free to participate in the political debates, then why not unions? And if companies and employers are free to donate to political parties, why not unions?
But that doesn’t make companies, employers, or unions into political parties.
The Longshore union on the West Coast of the US handles payroll for their union members. So, while it may be unusual, it is a mode that can be utilized.
I know what your assertion is. Repeating your assertion doesn’t explain why your assertion matters. Unless you care to explain why this distinction matters, I don’t see a need to respond further.