[lbo-talk] [LBO] Surowecki on unions

[Dissenting Wren]

Not a hater, but in the US the closed shop is a last line of defense in an 
otherwise extremely weak institutional context.  Specifically, French workers 
enjoy the protections of union-negotiated contracts without having to join 
unions.  Hence, French union density is almost as low as it is in the United 
States, but the number of workers covered by union contracts rivals Sweden. 

 Fitch points all of this out, but he doesn't draw the logical conclusion that 
the French system of open shops and competing unions can work only in a context 
where labor law makes this possible.  In the US, a simple move to an open shop 
would kill whatever is left of the unions.

----- Original Message ----
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 10:17:32 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] [LBO] Surowecki on unions

On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:


> Schickler and Caughey also observe correctly that the closed shop was (and 
>remains) "a major concern for unions since the open shop would undermine their 
>ability to gain and maintain a substantial membership base across industries. 
>But here too poll results indicated that even during the New Deal "a healthy 
>majority of the public opposed both the closed and union shop and instead 
>favored the open shop".

Bob Fitch (cue the haters!) says that the closed shop is part of the reason for 
U.S. unions' weak state. By being granted a monopoly, they don't have to do a 
damn thing for the members. In countries like France, where several unions 
compete, often on political grounds, the unions are livelier and more popular.

Doug
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk