Comment Re:Time for an union let's see what happens when (Score 1) 91
@dgatwood : Absolutely.
In NZ (and other places i've lived) unions seem to go in cycles of absolute necessity (as you say, the unions are doing the "good" that the govt should have been doing in the first place, either for the environment, the safety of the workers, or the stability of the industry) to the point where, having achieved a level of worker safety, pay, rights, environmental protection etc, they have nothing left to do.
At this point, the union itself doesn't want to disband (and lose their well paid hierarchy) so they pick fights, obstruct commerce with unrealistic wage demands, conditions etc. Eventually they lose members, or get squashed, legally sidelined or outlawed by a govt who has the support of enough of the public who have suffered due to the unions (due to pickets, strikes etc), and the business owners then claw back ground, reduce conditions and pay, and the cycle starts again.
So maybe we need a system where the unions can always exist, but members can come and go more easily, so that when an issue grips the workers attention, they can vote with their feet/wallets, and if enough of them agree that (say in this current environment for example) sick leave should be more generous, they can band together and make it happen.
Ultimately, the workers know how much they can take from the golden goose before the goose dies. No (few?) workers want a business to go under, but when a union gets too powerful and singleminded about punishing mgmt, everyone is at risk of losing their jobs.
At this point, the union itself doesn't want to disband (and lose their well paid hierarchy) so they pick fights, obstruct commerce with unrealistic wage demands, conditions etc. Eventually they lose members, or get squashed, legally sidelined or outlawed by a govt who has the support of enough of the public who have suffered due to the unions (due to pickets, strikes etc), and the business owners then claw back ground, reduce conditions and pay, and the cycle starts again.
So maybe we need a system where the unions can always exist, but members can come and go more easily, so that when an issue grips the workers attention, they can vote with their feet/wallets, and if enough of them agree that (say in this current environment for example) sick leave should be more generous, they can band together and make it happen.
Ultimately, the workers know how much they can take from the golden goose before the goose dies. No (few?) workers want a business to go under, but when a union gets too powerful and singleminded about punishing mgmt, everyone is at risk of losing their jobs.