Unionization vs corporatism?

[Machjo]

What are your thoughts on this?

Essentially in a corporatist economic system, government legislation aims at promoting unity between workers and management, via co-determination laws or other means to promote more exchange of ideas between labour and management, more consultation between them, and more cooperation.

Unionization is its opposite to a degree, whereby unions are formed and pit themselves against management in a confrontational manner.
Which do you think would be a preferable solution to the problem?

 

[Johnnny]

those are big political words for me

if i said i preffer and suppourt contract work, would that be on topic?

 

[Machjo]

those are big political words for me

if i said i preffer and suppourt contract work, would that be on topic?

Sure.

However, some might not be able to work on contract for whatever reason. So for paid staff, is it preferable that they unionize, or that the governemnt simply remove the need for unions by establishing laws that encourage more collaboration between labour and management so that they could discuss common goals rather than be pitted against each other all the time?

 

[Johnnny]

well in my case i work without a union, and between management and i we are always discussing ways to make things work. There is alot of cooperation

 

[Machjo]

well in my case i work without a union, and between management and i we are always discussing ways to make things work. There is alot of cooperation

So you've proven yourself smarter than the union.

Unfortunately, some don't understand this concept. Then perhaps a solution would be to teach your skills in school. In other words, teach children how to negotiate a contract. I don't know, maybe that would be a good idea and a way of weakening unions in future?

By the way, Johny, I've found the same. Cooperation pays much better than confrontation for both sides.

 

[Johnnny]

yea man im not sure on the best ways of getting good negotiation skillz to other people, mabye someone with more calm could address this. im really worked up right now sorry

 

[AnnaG]

What are your thoughts on this?

Essentially in a corporatist economic system, government legislation aims at promoting unity between workers and management, via co-determination laws or other means to promote more exchange of ideas between labour and management, more consultation between them, and more cooperation.

Unionization is its opposite to a degree, whereby unions are formed and pit themselves against management in a confrontational manner.
Which do you think would be a preferable solution to the problem?

Secular, apolitical, and altruistic humanism.

 

[lone wolf]

When a union of workers gained fair working wages and worker safety, it was doing its job. Unions, now, exist more to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[GreenFish66]

well in my case i work without a union, and between management and i we are always discussing ways to make things work. There is alot of cooperation

Good thread Machjo

Hear Here Johnnny,

This is my opinion as well ...I have worked in both Union and Non-Union shops and have benefited more from the non-Union shop..A Non - Union shop with an Open door policy is the best for all workers and Honest /Straight forward management ..Middle men only interfere and cause unnecessary friction..Unions are just another level of obstruction..They have lost their relevance..

 

[Liberalman]

Good thread Machjo

Hear Here Johnnny,

This is my opinion as well ...I have worked in both Union and Non-Union shops and have benefited more from the non-Union shop..A Non - Union shop with an Open door policy is the best for all workers and Honest /Straight forward management ..Middle men only interfere and cause unnecessary friction..Unions are just another level of obstruction..They have lost their relevance..

I used to work in a non-union shop and I had a lot of good ideas and was able to save the company lots of money and they gave me a nice plaque that said most valued employee.

My ideas streamlined the company and some employees were let go and I got to work a lot harder and the raises that I got were small but I had my shiny plaque.

When I went to work for a unionized company the first thing I noticed that the union took money of my pay calling it dues but after a while I didn’t mind because we got better contracts with higher pay and better benefits and better working conditions and all I did was my job and I went home every day.

I don’t get a shiny plaque I just make more money.

 

[GreenFish66]

Make more money in a Union ? Those day's will soon end Liberalman (for most, they already have)..More you make the more "THEY" take ..Until we are all Equal ..Right?....Good post though Liberalman ..

 

[ansutherland]

I think a light hybrid of the two is best. Unions can be great, though they can be anything but at times. Provided the union is kept in check with appropriate checks and balances then why not have them there to look out for the rights of their workers. That being said, businesses need to make money, and the harder we make if for them, the fewer of them there will be. In all honesty though, I think that unions have to a large extent out lived their usefulness in much of the west. We desperately needed them in times past, but the employer of today generally treats their employees quite well without a union presence.

 

[Machjo]

I think a light hybrid of the two is best. Unions can be great, though they can be anything but at times. Provided the union is kept in check with appropriate checks and balances then why not have them there to look out for the rights of their workers. That being said, businesses need to make money, and the harder we make if for them, the fewer of them there will be. In all honesty though, I think that unions have to a large extent out lived their usefulness in much of the west. We desperately needed them in times past, but the employer of today generally treats their employees quite well without a union presence.

I don't fully understand your response. Are you sure you understand the corporatist economic model and aren't confusing it with popular ideas about for-profit corporations? When we use corporatism in this sense, it's referring to looking at the whole economic system as a 'corps' (i.e. a body) each organ of which must function in conjunction with the others to achieve maximum efficiency. Thus the term corporatism. I'm not using the term in the pupulist sense of the word here.

Looking at it that way, a corporatist economic structure would in fact be looking out for the interests of workers and management alike. In this sense, it's intended to eliminate the need for labour unions by ensuring a common body or corps that would look out for the interests of all, but via collaboration rather than confrontation.

You can read up more on corporatism here:

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liberalman]

I don't fully understand your response. Are you sure you understand the corporatist economic model and aren't confusing it with popular ideas about for-profit corporations? When we use corporatism in this sense, it's referring to looking at the whole economic system as a 'corps' (i.e. a body) each organ of which must function in conjunction with the others to achieve maximum efficiency. Thus the term corporatism. I'm not using the term in the pupulist sense of the word here.

Looking at it that way, a corporatist economic structure would in fact be looking out for the interests of workers and management alike. In this sense, it's intended to eliminate the need for labour unions by ensuring a common body or corps that would look out for the interests of all, but via collaboration rather than confrontation.

You can read up more on corporatism here:

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The union will never fade away and the companies that treat their employees well are because they don’t want to deal with a union.

A union is like a lawyer that people pay on a regular bases to protect them from their superiors by applying the rules that management and labour agreed to.

The union levels the playing field.

corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organization that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals according to wiki.

If you had true equality in those models then I can see the point but you don’t because of power and the need to be in charges like master and slave.

In those models there is always conflict and hidden agendas.

Unions will never fade away they might redefine themselves but they are here to stay
.
.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have never worked in a unionised environment, but my experiences as both a manager and an employee have taught me that there is no need for one provided both sides act responsibly, and both sides make an effort to engage one another.

 

[ansutherland]

I don't fully understand your response. Are you sure you understand the corporatist economic model and aren't confusing it with popular ideas about for-profit corporations? When we use corporatism in this sense, it's referring to looking at the whole economic system as a 'corps' (i.e. a body) each organ of which must function in conjunction with the others to achieve maximum efficiency. Thus the term corporatism. I'm not using the term in the pupulist sense of the word here.

Looking at it that way, a corporatist economic structure would in fact be looking out for the interests of workers and management alike. In this sense, it's intended to eliminate the need for labour unions by ensuring a common body or corps that would look out for the interests of all, but via collaboration rather than confrontation.

You can read up more on corporatism here:

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not realize the word was being used in this sense. With this new meaning in mind, I would say that for the majority of the work force it seems we are mostly working under the Corporatism model.....that is if I understand the term correctly. Unionization has fallen dramatically in BC over the past 40 years yet I would say that work place relations are better than ever. I would postulate that it is likely the result of this Corporatism model you are suggesting where the employer and employee engage in collaborative efforts to mitigate problems and issues.

If I am in fact interpreting the term correctly, then I support it to the traditional unionization model. Unionization, though important in certain contexts, does contribute to it's own set of problems, namely, inefficiency.

 

[AnnaG]

Invest on the best penny stocks there is! The best profitable stock picks on the market.

CLICK HERE

Click this:

 

[Risus]

When a union of workers gained fair working wages and worker safety, it was doing its job. Unions, now, exist more to bite the hand that feeds them.

Wolf, I agree. The time for unions is past.
There are labour laws now which help protect the worker. Unions are not needed,

 

[Machjo]

I did not realize the word was being used in this sense. With this new meaning in mind, I would say that for the majority of the work force it seems we are mostly working under the Corporatism model.....that is if I understand the term correctly. Unionization has fallen dramatically in BC over the past 40 years yet I would say that work place relations are better than ever. I would postulate that it is likely the result of this Corporatism model you are suggesting where the employer and employee engage in collaborative efforts to mitigate problems and issues.

If I am in fact interpreting the term correctly, then I support it to the traditional unionization model. Unionization, though important in certain contexts, does contribute to it's own set of problems, namely, inefficiency.

I think you understand it. But just to be sure, of course lack of a union does not automatically mean a corporatist model. Also, a corporatist model generally involves government involvement too, essentially by definition. After all, if the nation is a corps, a body, then all components of that nation must be integrated into an efficient and functioning whole. As such, the government itself is a component part of that model. Of course there are various forms of corporatism. In Japan, they have boards representing government, industry and workers where they can all discuss their common interests and then focus on how to work together to achieve them in a way that is beneficial to all parties concerned. In Germany, the government legislates laws such as co-determination laws to ensure a structure within which labour and management can in fact consult on common interests. In Sweden too, the government focuses on what is often called the democratization of the workplace, similar to the German model albeit more progressive.

 

[taxslave]

Having been on both sides of the fence I often wonder what if anything goes through the heads of people like Jim Sinclair. Still fighting the battles from the 1920s. Unions do have a place even today although they often overstep their bounds. There were many times when I was running my own company that I wished all my competitors had a union since I paid above union rates and many of them don't.
Like johnny I have worked on contract as well and it works fine in some cases but not all. It does not work well in a large place where someone elses performance or lack thereof impacts your job.
Having an industry wide union is convenient for negotiating wages and benefits for both sides. Going on strike because someone got fired for getting drunk at work or because the cookhouse didn't have union picked oranges just shows power tripping by union management. Union management should also police their members that slack off and deliberately cause trouble since they are in effect a contract labour supplier in closed shop companies.Two of my biggest complaints are closed shop which is just a monopoly and promotions based on seniority rather than merit. In the long run it does neither side any good.
There are some employers that make unions necessary. We can thank Robert Dunsmuir for the establishment of unions on the west coast. Cheap rich bastard treated his employees like slaves. I don't believe in government employees having the right to strike and hold taxpayers hostage for services. In the private sector one can always go elsewhere for services.

I forgot about an interesting one that is happening here. When the Harmac pulp mill went broke the union took an equity position with some other investors to get it reopened and put some of their members back to work. They took some pay cuts and holiday pay cuts as well as all workers putting up $25000. It has only been a little over a year so too soon to tell how it will work out but the workers are now actively looking for ways to cut costs since they have a financial stake in success.