>>Well, the bosses experienced the classical authoritarian paradigm shift.
>>They figured out once again that is make more sense to co-opt the
>>opposition (via the AFL-CIO and Teamsters) than it was to kill them.
>>Capitalism requires workers to function, so the boss strategy of
>>legitimizing the moderate unions was a smart move.
>>
>>Then they did the next important thing, after WW2, and that was to give
>>workers lots of consumer goods to keep them distracted and isolated.
>
>They accepted unions right after WW2 because they thought they didn't have much choice. Thirty years later they started busting them in earnest (not that they were ever so mighty in the south). Why, if the co-optation/distraction strategy was so effective?
>
>Bosses *hate* unions. There's got to be a good reason for this.
Its obvious. In times of labour shortage, the employing class need to co-operate with unions. Given that workers have the advantage in the market, wages will inevitably increase, whether or not workers are unionised. The only way to keep wage increases to a minimum is through regulation and unions are essential to that process.
In other words, when market conditions favour the workers, employers want to restrict the operation of market forces. But when conditions favour employers, employers want no restrictions on the operation of market forces.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas