I have long been down on trade unions, not because I despise the concept of collective bargaining, but because I despise what so many unions have become: self-righteous, sometimes venal and violent, and dedicated first and foremost to protecting incompetence among the union head honchos or among the rank and file. As a former dues-paying union member (National Education Association), having seen that personally in action, having known others who've seen it in action, I've never hesitated to say it. But having said it, I've always thought that sane, sensible unions could exist.
The American Prospect has a pretty good article on Las Vegas unions that gave me a little hope. Now, it's the Prospect, of course, so they gush all over every good thing in Las Vegas and give 100% of the credit to the fact that it's high-union. But that's TAP for you. The point is, if you read how they do things, you think, "Gee. Isn't that what a union was supposed to be all along?" Not necessarily the headcracking extortion artists, but a group that was aggressively local in its activities rather than aggressively national, kept power at the grass roots, actually offered creativity, flexibility, and even (gasp) partnership with employers?
The mind boggles.
I'm sure there's probably a down side here that TAP doesn't mention, because everything has a down side. Still. If there were a union I'd actually want to join again, it looks like that one.
Hey Dean, you might want to take a look at this labour union, too:
Christian Labour Association of Canada.
A labor union for Christians? Fine, but in that case they'd have to have an open shop.
About the NEA: I've long been a strong supporter of labor unions in the private sector, but I'm against unions in the public sector. They keep the size and cost of government bloated, and when they strike they strike directly against _us_, the taxpayers, not against a private employer. E.g., that transit strike in L.A. hurt a lot of people, especially the older people and working poor who depend on public transit. It's a good thing New York City's police and firefighters weren't on strike when 9/11 hit. We should see to it that public employees have good pay and benefits, but they should not unionize _against_ the public.
I would say that the ideal situation with respect to unions would be:
1. No union gets to throw rocks, puncture tires, or make any kind of threats of violence.
2. Workers can join any one of several unions, or none at all. Unions compete for workers and for jobs.
3. The unions in turn represent workers at several sites.
4. The unions represent their workers, and collectively bargain for money for their workers.
5. Since unions must compete for workers (See #2), union dues are held in check.
Such unions actually do exist. They're called consulting firms or contractors.
The two consulting firms I've worked for always treated me right.
Yours,
Wince
Dean, I share your sympathies regarding the NEA (having the fortune of living in a right-to-work state, I quit the NEA nearly two years ago).
From my local understanding, Culinary isn't a perfect union, but they have their minds in the right place -- serving their members at the grass-roots level and partnering with the gaming industry to help train and retain a competent work force.
Reg Weaver could definitely learn a lesson or two from D. Taylor (head of Culinary Local 226 in Las Vegas).
Ken,
New Zealand's 1991 Employment Contracts Act did exactly what you propose. I couldn't find a great link but if you google "New Zealand Employment Contracts Act" there are lots of links. It was amended in 2000 but I don't know if any of the core freedoms were lost or not.
Rob