Why are trade unions declining?

FTA69

I work as a union organiser in England and could write about this forever to be honest so I’ll try and keep it as short as I can.

For my own union, the decline in industry is a major reason behind the decline in numbers covered by collective bargaining; instead there is a rise in precarious, atomised and tertiary sector service jobs. That’s a product of neoliberal capitalism in the west and an economic process that is very hard to acclimatise to. Financialisation over industrialisation is always going to affect blue-collar unions.

Aside from that I think the main reason unions are floundering is the fact they’re clinging to this nonsense idea of partnership. Working people are facing unprecedented attacks on their terms and conditions, working longer and harder for less money while wages across society have been stagnant for decades. There has also been a massive rise in precarity alongside other social pressures such as the decline in home ownership, privatisation of public services and high rents. A massive race to the bottom has been initiated and meanwhile unions for the most part delude themselves there is some two way street going on here and act almost as mediators as opposed to challenging this stuff head on.

In other words, unions have become corporatised and often conduct themselves as some sort of professional outside third body rather than the expression of the members themselves. They need to be more grassroots orientated, be more aggressive in driving up pay and have an organising strategy that takes in workers who are fed up and want to fight back. And the proof is in the pudding; here in the UK the unions who are growing are the most militant and democratic ones while the ones that are dying on their ass are the most conciliatory and business-like.

FTA69

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Amazing how people keep voting them into representative positions so. What's wrong with being careerist btw?

Well from a left wing point of view if your only goal as an MP is to advance your own political career and personal ambition as opposed to advocating for change and seeking to empower people to do it then that’s a very negative thing. Hence why lots of people who were student politicians ended up voting for privatisation and wars in the Middle East.

Wanderer78

Exceltrup wrote:

I know a few people in their 20s who are in typically union dominated industries, and it seems that youth membership is virtually non-existant. Why are unions declining?

Common across the western world, particularly since the neoliberal era, demonising union movements has worked, it can clearly be seen here to, particularly with public sector unions. And what have workers gotten from this? Only lower wage inflation, significant increase in the precariousness of employment and productivity levels, it's worked out well for us I guess!

Dyr

SupaCat95 wrote: »

In all fairness you are never going to see lads like Brendan Ogle or Jimmy Kelly in power again..

All thats coming through the ranks with full time trade union offiicials now are political types who work in the public sector, not a notion of life in the real world.

Mad_maxx

Unions are a good thing broadly speaking , worker's should have representation, however, politicians should not cow tow to union demands at every turn as happened with Bertie Ahern pre crash

Politicians serve voters, not union chiefs who happen to have the backing of a large number of vested interests

Dyr

FTA69 wrote: »

Aside from that I think the main reason unions are floundering is the fact they’re clinging to this nonsense idea of partnership. Working people are facing unprecedented attacks on their terms and conditions, working longer and harder for less money while wages across society have been stagnant for decades. There has also been a massive rise in precarity alongside other social pressures such as the decline in home ownership, privatisation of public services and high rents. A massive race to the bottom has been initiated and meanwhile unions for the most part delude themselves there is some two way street going on here and act almost as mediators as opposed to challenging this stuff head on.
.

Yeah, it's basically everyones fault but the unions that they're a busted flush. That's why you can't bring in members, an inability to look in the mirror and take responsibility.

Unions are packed with idealogues and time servers pushing the same tired old tactics from 30 years ago. People make choices based on impressions and when Union officials come across as incompetent then no-ones interested in forking out a monthly fee. The only ones who are actually motivated are the political headbangers and they're a liability.

Youse still wheeling that inflatable rat out for building site disputes? 30 years on like.

Eric Cartman

uptherebels wrote: »

well I've only worked in one business where there was union. It was basically used to look after the conditions and pay of the long term members. We "had" to join the union and pay the dues but when it came to any negotiations the lifers were looked after first, basically a two tier system. All in it together only when it suited them.

This is it, if youre 55, stuck in your ways and at the same job for the last 20 years, the union will shirld you from having to do extra work or losing your job if you cant be arsed figuring out how to use new software, ofcourse the work still needs doing so these people are just screwing over the young

Jimbob1977

1. Many companies have established employer-employee forums to discuss matters before they become serious.... in a bid to dissuade union membership

2. Rightly or wrongly... unions are perceived as intransigent. Finding fault with everything. Sometimes holding laughable and untenable positions. Headed up by idealists and lazy people that would endanger your jobs on a point of principle.

There is a need for unions, if they are sensible rather than infantile

FTA69

Bambi wrote: »

Yeah, it's basically everyones fault but the unions that they're a busted flush. That's why you can't bring in members, an inability to look in the mirror and take responsibility.

Unions are packed with idealogues and time servers pushing the same tired old tactics from 30 years ago. People make choices based on impressions and when Union officials come across as incompetent then no-ones interested in forking out a monthly fee. The only ones who are actually motivated are the political headbangers and they're a liability.

Youse still wheeling that inflatable rat out for building site disputes? 30 years on like.

You clearly didn’t read my post because I outlined how the approach within trade unions themselves has led to their decline.

BanditLuke

TheValeyard wrote: »

Yeah unions help keep employers in check whose only goal is to maximise their profit and minimise the expense. Without unions society would be back to the race to the bottom.

Back to? It is in a full on race to the bottom at present. Bus drivers, truck drivers, airline pilots, mechanics etc... are just a few to name who's wages have decreased or stagnated over the last 20 years. A lot of unions have done the square root of fcuk all to stop it.

Unions can be very dangerous for workers. Especially if being encouraged by external union reps trying to make a name for themselves. One such union rep was infamous in the Midwest.

One particular company well paying for skilled labour in a very niche area. The company claimed inability to pay an increase. The rep encouraged the workers to strike. The company folded. Now, it wasn't all the reps fault. It needs to be remembered that older workers with a lot of years service benefited from redundancy. But a lot of those workers (I suspect) would not have seen again the colour of the money they were on. Plus, it was one of those jobs where sons followed dad's into jobs. So, not only were they led to lose their jobs, but possibly the next generation.

Also, strange things can happen when unions get involved. Here's an example. One person is pleading with management for another person to be taken on in their department to help with workload, but the unions (there's two) are against more hires until a condition is met.

As management do you laugh or cry in that situation?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, strange things can happen when unions get involved. Here's an example. One person is pleading with management for another person to be taken on in their department to help with workload, but the unions (there's two) are against more hires until a condition is met.

As management do you laugh or cry in that situation?

neither because it doesn't happen.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

neither because it doesn't happen.

It has. You can decide to disbelieve it if you like. That's fair enough.

Workers Council model and representation on Board for employees as done in Germany is better than Union. It is certainly less confrontational and doesn't feel like the Game of Thrones scenario where Unions are using workers like pawns to advance their own agendas which don't align with the interests of the workers in that particular company. It prevents Unions from killing the Goose that laid the Golden Egg as they are wont to do.

ILoveYourVibes

Honestly if they are I think its because they don't have good leaders.

Three things you need to be a great trade unionist ...balls ...character ...and a brilliant ability to argue.

You don't even see one of those in people these days.

Plus the people who want to be stewarts etc ..are usually young people just out of college who should be stepping aside for people with experience. The young people want to take over.

Also and I personally think this is a BIG factor and the biggest con in the corporate world.

For some reason .....young people going to work for the first time in big companies ..seem to think that HR ....now does some of the work a union would do for them. Whereas the older people working in that same company are wiser and KNOW that HR has a mole in their department spying on them.

HR spies are very VERY real thing.

I have spken to many people who really think HR is there to help employees settle disbutes bleh bleh.

I will tell you this ....what side of the table is HR on when the union negotiates with a company?? exactly ..the union negotiates with hr.





https://www.irishtimes.com/news/power-of-unions-has-crumbled-with-rise-of-hr-1.962110


A lot of people IN trade unions saw this was happening and switched sides. They had EXACTLY the right skills HR wanted ...great industrial relations and an ability to argue. A lot of it is ...conditioning through the environment. Which is all highly orchestrated.

People used to TAKE action over things and stewards would be called IN to talk about any changes. ...now they get chirpy anon memos telling them AFTER the changes have taken place.

Weirdly HR seem to be taking over EVERYTHING ...some HR depts even do payroll now ...

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Workers Council model and representation on Board for employees as done in Germany is better than Union. It is certainly less confrontational and doesn't feel like the Game of Thrones scenario where Unions are using workers like pawns to advance their own agendas which don't align with the interests of the workers in that particular company. It prevents Unions from killing the Goose that laid the Golden Egg as they are wont to do.

You forget that unions are controlled by the members through democratic processes. Members vote for Council members, and vote on resolutions every year.

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

1. Many companies have established employer-employee forums to discuss matters before they become serious.... in a bid to dissuade union membership

2. Rightly or wrongly... unions are perceived as intransigent. Finding fault with everything. Sometimes holding laughable and untenable positions. Headed up by idealists and lazy people that would endanger your jobs on a point of principle.

There is a need for unions, if they are sensible rather than infantile

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is it, if youre 55, stuck in your ways and at the same job for the last 20 years, the union will shirld you from having to do extra work or losing your job if you cant be arsed figuring out how to use new software, ofcourse the work still needs doing so these people are just screwing over the young

You've been watching too many 1970 UK comedies lads. This bears no relation to what's happening in the real world in Ireland today.

Bambi wrote: »

All thats coming through the ranks with full time trade union offiicials now are political types who work in the public sector, not a notion of life in the real world.

Well, if they're full time trade union officials, then by definition, they don't work in the public sector.

FTA69 wrote: »

Well from a left wing point of view if your only goal as an MP is to advance your own political career and personal ambition as opposed to advocating for change and seeking to empower people to do it then that’s a very negative thing. Hence why lots of people who were student politicians ended up voting for privatisation and wars in the Middle East.

If your only goal is your own career, the people who vote for you tend to see through this fairly quickly. So you need to manage your own career and personal ambition while advocating for change and seeking to empower people.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Unions can be very dangerous for workers. Especially if being encouraged by external union reps trying to make a name for themselves. One such union rep was infamous in the Midwest.

One particular company well paying for skilled labour in a very niche area. The company claimed inability to pay an increase. The rep encouraged the workers to strike. The company folded. Now, it wasn't all the reps fault. It needs to be remembered that older workers with a lot of years service benefited from redundancy. But a lot of those workers (I suspect) would not have seen again the colour of the money they were on. Plus, it was one of those jobs where sons followed dad's into jobs. So, not only were they led to lose their jobs, but possibly the next generation.

Also, strange things can happen when unions get involved. Here's an example. One person is pleading with management for another person to be taken on in their department to help with workload, but the unions (there's two) are against more hires until a condition is met.

As management do you laugh or cry in that situation?

Most such manufacturing enterprises were/are on borrowed time. It's almost impossible to complete with low cost labour in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe or beyond.

What was the 'condition that needed to be met' btw?

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, if they're full time trade union officials, then by definition, they don't work in the public sector.

Read the post, "coming through the ranks" the younger generation of full time officials are coming through from the public sector. Not suprising given that the private sector is dying for union representation

Somone mentioned that an ability to argue is the most important thing a steward has but knowing employment law is more important otherwise you'll just be bamboozled, when you get the to the LRC its a lottery even then. Probably the only benefit a union gives you in the private sector is legal representation in those cases.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

Read the post, "coming through the ranks" the younger generation of full time officials are coming through from the public sector. Not suprising given that the private sector is dying for union representation

Somone mentioned that an ability to argue is the most important thing a steward has but knowing employment law is more important otherwise you'll just be bamboozled, when you get the to the LRC its a lottery even then. Probably the only benefit a union gives you in the private sector is legal representation in those cases.

I read the post. It said; "political types who work in the public sector" [present tense[. It didn't say; "political types who worked in the public sector" [past tense].

Don't blame me for your sloppy terminology. Certainly, knowing employment law is very important, which is probably why most unions have extensive training programmes and services for staff and representatives.

Dyr

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I read the post. It said; "political types who work in the public sector" [present tense[. It didn't say; "political types who worked in the public sector" [past tense].

Don't blame me for your sloppy terminology. Certainly, knowing employment law is very important, which is probably why most unions have extensive training programmes and services for staff and representatives.

"Coming through the ranks" is also in the present tense, i.e. not yet full time officials on a union payroll. Of course you have people still employed in the public sector who are full time union reps so either way it works

You could have tried to argue the point rather than engange in forum pedantry but that wouldnt have gone better for you.

I spent about 20 years as a workplace union rep, I could write a ****ing book on how badly organised and amateurish Irish unions are.

FTA69

Knowing the law is only a small part of being an official to be honest, most unions have legal departments to bounce that stuff off anyway; although the industrial process is a lot more legalistic in Ireland than it is over here. Most of the law can be summed up by the fact it generally favours big business and the stronger and more organised the workforce is, the better their position is. The best officials are the ones who can motivate groups of people to take collective action and devise effective strategies in that regard.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

"Coming through the ranks" is also in the present tense, i.e. not yet full time officials on a union payroll. Of course you have people still employed in the public sector who are full time union reps so either way it works

You could have tried to argue the point rather than engange in forum pedantry but that wouldnt have gone better for you.

I spent about 20 years as a workplace union rep, I could write a ****ing book on how badly organised and amateurish Irish unions are.

If they are currently coming through the ranks, then they're not full time union reps. They only have one full time job - either public sector or union rep - not both.

The union is as strong or as weak as its membership.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most such manufacturing enterprises were/are on borrowed time. It's almost impossible to complete with low cost labour in Poland or elsewhere in eastern Europe or beyond.

That's true. The UK even more impacted. But you can't agree with bringing it to a head, possibly by years.


The other question I'll not answer for anonymity reasons.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

neither because it doesn't happen.

seen it happen myself in a certain medical device company.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

seen it happen myself in a certain medical device company.

Fake news

FTA69

One thing that does concern me is the growth in the amount of professional lefties who have taken roles in some of our unions here (UK), that and Labour politicos who have never been on the tools in their lives or worked a low paid job suddenly walking into quite senior roles in policy and the like. A horrible right wing Labour figure here was made an Assistant General Secretary in the biggest union in the country and she’s never done a day’s tap in her life.

mariaalice

The usual paranoia and cynicism.

The unions have coalesced around certain types of employment and declined in others simply because of modern work practices, modern HR policies, less workplace full of poorly educated people doing dangerous or poorly paid work, better health and safety legislation, less business with an identifiable owner, more moving around and changing of jobs, better-educated workforce. The emergence of law firms specialising in employment law.

Much like politicians, lots want to give out about union officials while not putting themselves forward to do the job themselves.

ShagNastii

Companies nowadays seriously couldn’t give a flying one about the unions. I’ve seen it myself in the company I work for (which has a solid union)

Some many things have come up that have had people and the union banging tables, the company didn’t care.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You forget that unions are controlled by the members through democratic processes. Members vote for Council members, and vote on resolutions every year.

Nope, that is not how it works. You are mistaken. The Unions tried to take positions on the board of our company without having been nominated by the Employees and expressly against the wishes of the Employees in my company. The employees had to fight their claim in the Courts to prevent them from taking seats on the board.
It was fought off by the employees and the Unions' influence on the Members Council is minimal now. It was real GoT skullduggery by the Unions.

MadYaker

Everything runs in cycles, ebbing and flowing. Trade unions might start to lose influence until the reasons they came into existence in the first place come back to the fore. People have short memories.