AC/AS Question: Labor Unions

[Dane S]

I've been thinking some over the debate between Anarchocapitalism and Anarchosyndicalism and wondering if a debate really exists. In a society where force cannot be used to prevent any form of unionization or any noncoercive union activities, wouldn't the majority of the power in most industries shift to the workers pretty quickly? I mean really what body is more critical to a company's success, its management or the body of its skilled workers? The workers could easily supply management from within the union structure. Can the board of directors run the assembly line?

I'm wondering what, if anything, stops labor unions from using their highly superior bargaining positions to all but take over control of their companies?

And if this is the direction things would go in, then doesn't AC lead to much the same situation that AS wants to see without employing any coercive methods?

I'm beginning to wonder if either the "S" or the "C" belong in either, if the system that would result from true anarchy wouldn't defy any previous categorizations or labels.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking some over the debate between Anarchocapitalism and Anarchosyndaclism and wondering if a debate really exists. In a society where force cannot be used to prevent any form of unionization or any noncoercive union activities, wouldn't the majority of the power in most industries shift to the workers pretty quickly?

[/ QUOTE ]
What force can be used against unions today? Can you even be fired for joining a union? Or going on strike? Everything I have seen shows the unions are the ones who are allowed to use force against the employers.

[ QUOTE ]

I mean really what body is more critical to a company's success, its management or the body of its skilled workers?


[/ QUOTE ]
The management... by a lot.

[ QUOTE ]

The workers could easily supply management from within the union structure. Can the board of directors run the assembly line?


[/ QUOTE ]
Probably, but I would wager not very well.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering what, if anything, stops labor unions from using their highly superior bargaining positions to all but take over control of their companies?


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it highly superior if there is no force? I would think they lose power.

[ QUOTE ]

And if this is the direction things would go in, then doesn't AC lead to much the same situation that AS wants to
see without employing any coercive methods?


[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree this is how things would go, but if it is then the most efficient production methods wins. Everyone gets what they want. No problem here.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm beginning to wonder if either the "S" or the "C" belong in either, if the system that would result from true anarchy wouldn't defy any previous categorizations or labels.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you define anarchy to be. A lot of classical anarchists have a much different definition than ACists.

I think you are way off base on what would happen, although no one would know until they tried.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]

What force can be used against unions today? Can you even be fired for joining a union? Or going on strike? Everything I have seen shows the unions are the ones who are allowed to use force against the employers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know very little about union relations, so I'm hoping to get some educated responses on the subject. I know, for one thing, that in many industries the state deems "critical", the government can make it illegal to strike or force striking employees to go back to work.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

I mean really what body is more critical to a company's success, its management or the body of its skilled workers?



The management... by a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning? I'm thinking that the skills higher level management requires: accounting, economics, business knowledge, are highly interchangeable for most industries, while most skilled labor positions aren't. It seems to me that this is why strikes are effective in the first place.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What force can be used against unions today? Can you even be fired for joining a union? Or going on strike? Everything I have seen shows the unions are the ones who are allowed to use force against the employers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know very little about union relations, so I'm hoping to get some educated responses on the subject. I know, for one thing, that in many industries the state deems "critical", the government can make it illegal to strike or force striking employees to go back to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is usually only true for government workers. At least in the US. Although I remember there was some cases with airlines recently where they were ordered by the govt to work. So I guess it does go both ways.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

I mean really what body is more critical to a company's success, its management or the body of its skilled workers?



The management... by a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning? I'm thinking that the skills higher level management requires: accounting, economics, business knowledge, are highly interchangeable for most industries, while most skilled labor positions aren't. It seems to me that this is why strikes are effective in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a worker is very skilled by the business plan is crap, he will be basically wasting his effort. If you have a crappy worker, basically you lose one persons production (maybe a few more if they are really bad). If you have a bad manager, it has a much larger impact. I think you are overlooking a lot of management. They need to decide how to allocate the resources of many employees, possibly hundreds or thousands and drive them towards a profitable goal. They may be interchangeable between industries (although there are huge advantages in knowing an industry well, which is why you see a lot of top level execs that switch companies remain in at least a similar industry), but the skills needed are much more rare. There are very few "skilled worker" positions that have that few number of people able to adequetely fill the job. Even highly skilled workers like engineers and scientists have thousands of others that could replace them without having much of a dropoff. This is not true of top-level managers. The difference between a great CEO and a mediocre one could be billions of dollars of revenue.

Perhaps in some rare and highly skilled (difficult to retrain someone) positions, this may be possible, but my guess is they are already paid a lot of money even without unions.

[ConstantineX]

No way. Most labor workers perform highly repetitive jobs with no real need for on the job adaptation. Executives and managers usually have to manage teams with changing objectives, and goals. Good, well-paid executives should SYNTHESIZE information. One of the syndaclists' claims is that because low-skill laborers are paid less than the retail price of the products they create, they must have been exploited. We see that managers, middle-men, and executives must then create measurable value - and we see this across a broad range of industries, and it is higher than that of "unskilled" labor.

What puzzles me about anarcho-syndacalism is how it's supposed to justify it's investors acute exposure to risk. In this economic system, the only share an individual can own is that in the company he works in - otherwise, he's somehow marginalizing others in that share by having power of their means of production. The individual's livelihood is intimately connected with his company's. The argument, according the ASers, is that this connection will promote sharing and a much more intimate evaluation of a company's practices, like it's effect on the environment. But it's clear that's not what investors want (to be exposed to high amounts of risk), and that it makes individuals better off if the can differentially own different stocks, according to their preferences for risk. You artificially restrict an individual's portfolio, along with other financial instruments (like private equity stripping assets from conglomerates), and expose them to more risk. Is this addressable? (btw I'd appreciate someone like Najdorf criticizing this if I've gotten anything wrong)

[Johnny Hughes]

Check out American history and the decline of Unions.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

I mean really what body is more critical to a company's success, its management or the body of its skilled workers?



The management... by a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning? I'm thinking that the skills higher level management requires: accounting, economics, business knowledge, are highly interchangeable for most industries, while most skilled labor positions aren't. It seems to me that this is why strikes are effective in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a worker is very skilled by the business plan is crap, he will be basically wasting his effort. If you have a crappy worker, basically you lose one persons production (maybe a few more if they are really bad). If you have a bad manager, it has a much larger impact. I think you are overlooking a lot of management. They need to decide how to allocate the resources of many employees, possibly hundreds or thousands and drive them towards a profitable goal. They may be interchangeable between industries (although there are huge advantages in knowing an industry well, which is why you see a lot of top level execs that switch companies remain in at least a similar industry), but the skills needed are much more rare. There are very few "skilled worker" positions that have that few number of people able to adequetely fill the job. Even highly skilled workers like engineers and scientists have thousands of others that could replace them without having much of a dropoff. This is not true of top-level managers. The difference between a great CEO and a mediocre one could be billions of dollars of revenue.

Perhaps in some rare and highly skilled (difficult to retrain someone) positions, this may be possible, but my guess is they are already paid a lot of money even without unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that a single manager is worth more than a single worker, but I'm talking about the body of workers vs. the body of management. Good managers can save the company a lot of money, but you don't even have a company without the workers. You don't produce anything. If this weren't true, then strikes wouldn't work would they? Because workers could just be fired and replaced.

[Dane S]

ConstantineX,

See my reply to Tom. I'm not claiming that workers have a higher value to a company than managers, but that the workers as a body are more necessary to the company's survival than the body of managers. Not sure if this is true or not, but it seems that way to me.