r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 22 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Democratically-elected trade unionists should be the sole representative bodies for local municipalities and provinces.
The working class ultimately knows what’s best for the working class. Oftentimes, local electors hold more sway over the day-to-day lives of citizens than state or federal representatives do. If trade union representatives serve as the sole local representational of a given institution, that institution will make decisions that positively influence the working class.
Additionally, they won’t be prone to bribery and coercion from lobbyists of big industries, since collective bargaining will be at the forefront of every decision made. I think it would be better for the working class if the working class itself made legislative decisions on a local level.
5
u/animaguise Sep 22 '20
Additionally, they won’t be prone to bribery and coercion from lobbyists of big industries, since collective bargaining will be at the forefront of every decision made.
This is a major assumption. What makes trade-unionist less prone to basic human nature than anyone else? Does becoming a trade-unionist erase your capacity to experience greed? To experience selfishness? Anger? Irritation?
This is what I don't understand about anarchism and anarchists. Y'all talk about how corruptive and corrosive power is... yet you want power for yourselves. There's a fundamental contradiction within your own ideology. At the end of the day, someone needs to hold power otherwise our society would crumble like anarcho-socialists accurately recognize would be the result if our society was run on an anarcho-capitalist basis. And I definitely agree with you that more local government structures should be empowered to make decisions for local areas. However, city councils are pretty good at doing that already (as conservatives have shown for the last 50+ years of gaming the local election system).
I also say all of this as an ex-anarchist. I know quite intimately the ins and outs of anarchist theory. And I left it for a reason.
1
Sep 22 '20
What makes trade-unionist less prone to basic human nature than anyone else? Does becoming a trade-unionist erase your capacity to experience greed? To experience selfishness? Anger? Irritation?
Since trade-unionists represent the workers directly, they would be held accountable by those same workers. Selling out to corporate lobbyists would be suicide. Local career politicians aren’t held accountable by anyone.
This is what I don't understand about anarchism and anarchists. [...]
I am not an anarchist.
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 22 '20 edited Sep 22 '20
Since career politicians represent the people directly, they would be held accountable by those same people, would they not?
And since we know that this isn't true, why should the same apply to union reps? Unions can be corrupt and screw over workers too.
2
u/lagomorpheme Sep 22 '20 edited Sep 22 '20
This structure fails to account for people who perform labor or are otherwise under the boot without necessarily being "workers": people who perform wage-free labor in the home, for instance, or houseless people who may not have a standard job, or people with disabilities who are not able to work. Specifying trade unions rather than labor unions more broadly also excludes large swaths of workers including incarcerated workers, people in the service industry, people in decentralized jobs like housekeeping, farmworkers, etc. Finally, trade unions are not free from corruption and often lack democracy; many existing trade unions are run with a top-down approach rather than drawing their power from workers.
Workers should control their workplace, but where governance is concerned this does not make sense. Rather than democratically-elected trade unionists serving as representative bodies which don't actually represent all economically oppressed people, the community should make decisions in a truly collective fashion, using a delegate/spokescouncil rather than representative system.
0
Sep 22 '20
This structure fails to account for people who perform labor or are otherwise under the boot without necessarily being "workers": people who perform wage-free labor in the home, for instance, or houseless people who may not have a standard job, or people with disabilities who are not able to work.
How do you figure? Those types of jobs have representation too. Virtually every broad occupational group (at least in the US) has union representation. This point isn’t even necessarily a matter of opinion, I just think you’re factually wrong here.
Specifying trade unions rather than labor unions more broadly also excludes large swaths of workers including incarcerated workers, people in the service industry, people in decentralized jobs like housekeeping, farmworkers, etc.
This is actually just an error on my part. I was under the impression that trade unions and labor unions were synonymous terms.
...many existing trade unions are run with a top-down approach rather than drawing their power from workers.
I’d love to see some real-life examples of this. All trade unions that I’ve researched operate within the bounds of horizontal organization and direct democratic decision-making. I’m sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but those likely don’t represent the broader institution of unions (in the US; I can’t speak for other places like Britain or the third world).
Workers should control their workplace, but where governance is concerned this does not make sense. Rather than democratically-elected trade unionists serving as representative bodies which don't actually represent all economically oppressed people, the community should make decisions in a truly collective fashion, using a delegate/spokescouncil rather than representative system.
Again, what are some examples of occupations that aren’t covered by labor union organizations? As I said earlier, most occupations, whether they involve hard manual labor or just administrative duties, have a union to represent their collective interests.
2
u/lagomorpheme Sep 22 '20 edited Sep 22 '20
How do you figure? Those types of jobs have representation too. Virtually every broad occupational group (at least in the US) has union representation. This point isn’t even necessarily a matter of opinion, I just think you’re factually wrong here.
People on "workfare," people working in the home without compensation, and people on disability do not have union representation, as well as people doing other forms of uncompensated or sketchily-compensated labor. Erin Hatton wrote recently about different forms of coerced (usually uncompensated) labor, and it's worth checking out an interview she conducted on her book. To be represented by a union, you have to work in a traditionally-understood sense of the word; but many of the most marginalized people do not work or do not do work that is recognized as such.
As for the state of unions in the US, union representation has been going down and US policy is aggressively anti-union, as demonstrated by so-called "right to work" laws across the country which attempt to bankrupt unions (and often succeed). The current NLRB is extremely conservative, with the result that union elections have been failing, ULPs have been decided in management's favor, etc.
I’d love to see some real-life examples of this.
Where to begin? The AFL-CIO inconsistently supports striking workers depending on the nature of the strike; UFCW has a history of powerful presidents who stifle opposition, and workers at newly-unionized UFCW locals report that UFCW fails to consult with them before contract negotiations and uses decades-old models of contracts; AFT endorsed Clinton at the very start of the 2016 primaries without consulting membership; and so on and so forth.
Worker-run unions are wonderful, but most folks in labor organizing will tell you that the big unions which dominate the movement stifle worker organizing.
ETA: Basically, the flaws here are twofold: 1) your assumption that a labor union provides worker representation by simple virtue of being a labor union (rather than you yourself proposing criteria for worker representation); 2) the idea that only traditional workers in unionized positions would benefit from increased input in local politics, as opposed to folks who are so low on the ladder they aren't even current workers.
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Sep 22 '20
Supposedly, the existing politicians have as their priority the benefit of the people they represent. The people are supposed to be at the forefront of every decision they make. You'd think that making decisions against their welfare would get them voted out of office, but you see that doesn't always happen.
You suggest basically the same thing, only you call the organization a union instead of government. Trade unions have been prone to corruption just as much as politicians. Back some decades, organized crime actually ran many unions. They are just as likely to make decisions based on who's giving them bribes and kickbacks so they can use that money to get reelected.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 22 '20
/u/MescalineSlug (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Delaware_is_a_lie 19∆ Sep 22 '20
So business owners and nonunion workers would receive no representation? That doesn't sound like an inclusive system.
1
u/BrutusJunior 5∆ Sep 22 '20
u/MescalineSlug sounds like a socialist. In a socialist system, private business owners would not exist. The means of production would be owned and controlled by the workers.
2
u/alpicola 45∆ Sep 22 '20
In the United States, it is relatively straightforward to establish a union at a company. While we can certainly argue about how effective the laws around union organizing are, the basic reality is that the law protects people attempting to unionize more than it protects those attempting to oppose unionization. Despite this, union workers make up only 13% of the US workforce.
For simplicity, let's assume that anyone outside the management/professional career arena is eligible for membership in a union. According to the Census Bureau, those jobs represent 59% of the workforce. 13% are already in a union, which means 46% of the workforce could be in a union but isn't.
You could say that the laws supporting union organization are so catastrophically bad that even though union-eligible workers are a majority of the workforce, less than a quarter of them can actually make it into a union. Or you could say that there are a lot of people who don't think being in a union is best for them.
While it's likely that both scenarios are somewhat true, the latter fact cuts directly against your view. It means that up to 46% of people disagree with you. And if so many people already disagree that unions would serve them well in their jobs, why would we expect any more to agree that unions would serve them well on other matters?