Good Honest Dollar $$

In last week’s post, I outlined two common objections toward the concept of allowing workers the right to form unions and bargain on a collective basis.

Today, I would like to outline the reasons why I feel that workers should have the right to form unions.

 
The employer-employee relationship is a special case
In last week’s discussion, I asked why employees should be granted special rights, such as the right to bargain on a collective basis, which are not granted to other economic participants.

My answer – the employer/employee relationship is a special case.

As a result of the degree to which the majority of workers are financially dependent upon a singular employer, employees are considerably more susceptible than other economic participants toward abuses of their rights. In light of this, it is reasonable to expect there should be some respects where employees are given different treatment under the law to that of other economic participants.

(Whilst sensible employers will always honor the rights of their staff, we must nevertheless accept the unfortunate reality that some attempts to exploit workers do occur from unscrupulous employers.)

 
The case for unions
There is, in my view, a strong case for allowing workers to form a representative body and bargain on a collective basis:

 
• A powerful deterrent to abuse of worker rights.

Fear of confrontation with powerful unions can, on one hand, result in employers accepting unreasonable demands.

On the other hand, such a fear provides a powerful deterrent to the abuse of worker rights.

Whilst primary responsibility for worker protection should rest with the government, the unfortunate reality is that government actions are not always sufficient to prevent exploitation of workers in every country.

In any case, even in countries where governments do adopt proactive measures toward the protection of worker rights, the fear of confrontation with unions (in addition to the prospect of legal penalties) still acts as a powerful deterrent toward the abuse of such rights.

 
• Affordable legal advice and representation.

Legal action never should be considered in terms of the resolution of workplace disputes until all other possible approaches have been exhausted.

Nevertheless, in cases of genuine rights abuses from unscrupulous and unrepentant employers, it is imperative that aggrieved workers not be disadvantaged in the legal system from either: (a) a lack of financial capacity to pursue legal remedies; or (b) any lack of understanding of their legal rights.

This is one area where a union can play a pivotal role – by providing its members legal advice and representation.

Furthermore, in many cases, a visit from union representatives (along with the associated message that the employee concerned has a powerful organization standing right behind him or her) is sufficient to pull unscrupulous employers into line.

 
An Internationally Recognized Right
The right to join the union is specifically recognized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (article 23, sub-section 4), along with the right of refusal to do so (refer article 20, sub-section 2).

Human rights must have a global baseline standard, beyond which any breaches are considered to be human rights abuses.

Whilst the declaration is not perfect, it is the best we have in terms of internationally agreed standards. Any attempt by any government (or any other party) to prevent citizens from acting upon their rights as specified under the declaration, including the right to belong to a union, should be considered a human rights abuse.

 
The strongest argument – common sense
In some cases, collective bargaining through unions would appear to be a matter of simple common sense.

This is particularly the case where firms employ large numbers of workers and/or the tasks performed by a significant portion of an organization’s staff are largely homogeneous in nature.

In such cases, attempting to negotiate wages and conditions on an individual basis, with each and every individual worker, would be pointless, impractical and inefficient. Equally ineffective is the practice whereby employers simply offer employment conditions on a take it or leave it basis without any form of negotiation. Such an approach provides no mechanism for worker input, nor any opportunity for sensible discussion as to how the agreement can be structured to best suit the requirements of both parties.

The most sensible option in these types of cases is for staff to elect representatives to negotiate workplace agreements on their behalf. This approach is not only efficient, but it provides an effective mechanism to enable the agreement to be structured in the best possible way in order to meet the requirements of both parties.

 
The right not to join a union
Whilst the right to belong to a union has international recognition, so to does the right of refusal to do so, and under no circumstances should union membership ever be mandatory, compulsory, or a condition of any form of employment.

In today’s post, I would like to commence a  two-part discussion in relation to the issue of whether or not employees should have a right to form and belong to a trade union.

To many in the western world, such a right is beyond legal and moral dispute, and in my view, the option to join a union (as well as the option to refuse to join) is a right to which workers should be entitled.

Nevertheless I feel that challenging the notion of union membership as a fundamental right is a worthwhile exercise, particularly as unions are disallowed in some countries.

Accordingly, today I would like to outline and discuss two common objections toward the concept of unions. Next week, I will highlight and discuss the case in favor of unions, and why I believe workers should be permitted to bargain on a collective basis via membership of a union.

 
The case against unions
Trade unions are subject to an extremely wide range of criticisms, springing from a variety of sources.

Today, I would like to focus on two areas of criticism in particular – that unions have a harmful impact upon the economy and that they are anti-competitive in nature.

 
How collective bargaining is anti-competitive
Anti-competitive behavior is generally frowned upon in much of the western world – in particular the practice of firms engaging in collusive behavior with other (competing) firms in order to maximize the prices they receive for their output.

Such practices are generally considered to be unfair and a hindrance to the effective functioning of a competitive marketplace.

But aren’t workers doing the same during the collective bargaining process? They are. Where staff employed in a particular industry join together (in a union) to bargain on a collective basis, this too represents a form of collusion – individual workers colluding with each other in an organized effort to maximize the price which they receive for their labor.

Moreover, in cases where the majority or entirety of the workforce within a given industry is represented by a singular union, such a union effectively operates from the position of a monopolist during the bargaining process, and is able to exploit its position to make unfair or unreasonable demands upon employers.

In a fair system, all classes of economic participants should be given equal rights, and the rules as to what is considered to be acceptable conduct or otherwise should apply equally to all. Why then should employees, as one class of economic participants, be allowed to engage in collusive behavior when other classes are not? 

 
Unions and the economy
A second objection to the concept of unions, and one which I do not feel is particularly strong, relates to their economic impact.

Critics say that the collective bargaining process results in higher unemployment as well as higher consumer prices than would otherwise be the case if collective bargaining were not allowed.

According to this argument, collective bargaining increases the negotiating strength of workers, and thus leads to higher wage settlements and therefore higher labor costs. This, in turn, leads to two negative economic effects: 

• Higher consumer prices, as firms seek to protect profit margins in light of higher labor costs; and

• Higher levels of unemployment, as higher wage levels result in a reduction in demand for workers.

I do not feel that this argument is particularly strong. Given what I feel is a strong case for unions (see next post), I feel that any adverse economic impact of their formation would not be a sufficient basis upon which to disallow the practice of collective bargaining.

In last week’s post, I outlined what I felt to be a range of core fundamental rights to which every worker should be entitled, regardless of the country, industry or culture in which they are employed.

But with rights come responsibilities, and today, I would like to outline what I feel should be the key responsibilities of each and every employee.

 
Key responsibilities of employees
Listed below are what I feel should be the key responsibilities of every employee. This list is by no means exhaustive and readers are encouraged to add their own suggestions:

 
• Strive to maximize their contribution.

This point summarizes the overriding responsibility of an employee in a nutshell.

Employees must at all times strive to maximize the value of their contribution to their contribution, both to their employer and also the key stakeholders to whom their employer is accountable.

This must be the overriding focal point, and the foundation upon which staff base their whole approach toward the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

The bare minimum is not acceptable. Workers must go all-out for excellence.

 
• Adopt an attitude of service.

An employment relationship should be one of mutual respect. But it is not a relationship of equals – the employee is the servant and the employer is the master.

Let me stress, I am not talking about any form of slavery. Instead, what I am talking about is that workers must accept that they are in a position of service, and that this has two fundamental consequences in terms of the manner in which they should approach their responsibilities.

The first such consequence relates to an employee’s interaction with those to whom he or she is accountable. Staff must seek to adopt an attitude of personal humility, particularly in the presence of superiors, owners or shareholders, as well as other relevant stakeholders. In addition, workers should demonstrate an appropriate degree of courtesy and respect toward those to whom they are accountable.

The second consequence relates to the manner in which employees approach their responsibilities. Workers must seek to serve in a manner which is dutiful, loyal and trustworthy at all times – regardless of whether his or her superiors are watching.  

 
• Do whatever it takes.

Staff must always be willing and prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to complete their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

Whilst excessive amounts of overtime should not be encouraged, employees must be willing to put in time outside of standard office hours where necessary in order to get the job done. In addition, workers must be willing to assist with projects which are not normally within their job description where necessary.

 
• Be a team player.

The attitude of “not my department, not my responsibility,” has no place within the modern workplace environment.

Employees owe a position of service to the entire company and the key stakeholders that the company serves, not simply the department to which they are allocated, and staff must be willing to work in a cooperative manner with those outside of their department and contribute toward projects which fall outside the scope of their regular duties.

 
• Act with integrity.

Employees should seek to act in a manner of complete honesty and integrity at all times.

Prior to commencing employment, prospective employees must refrain from making any form of misrepresentation in terms of their qualifications or suitability for the position.

Whilst in employment, any form of theft, misappropriation or unauthorized of company money, property or data is unacceptable, as is any misuse of position for personal gain.

In addition, staff must refrain from participation in any form of conduct which is illegal, unethical, or in breach of any applicable industry or professional codes of conduct – regardless of any pressure applied by colleagues or superiors.

Finally, upon becoming aware of any form of improper conduct of others, employees must report such conduct to an appropriate authority – whether this be to an appropriate manager within the organization, or potentially to regulatory authorities or other parties outside the organization.

 
• Observe all health and safety procedures.

Whilst the employer has an obligation to provide a safe working environment, every employee within an organization has the responsibility to take a proactive approach toward ensuring not only their own personal safety, but also that of their colleagues.

This includes following all occupational health and safety procedures, wearing all required safety equipment, and either taking immediate preventative action or brining the matter to the attention of appropriate personnel in the event of identification of potential hazards.

 
• Refuse to engage in conduct which harmful to their employer.

At no stage should an employee engage in any form of conduct which could in any way cause harm to their employer, whether during or outside office hours.

Employees must refrain from participation in any form of employment or business activities outside the scope of their regular job which either represent any form of competition to their employer’s business or result in any form of conflict of interest which has the potential to in any way compromise their ability to serve their employer in a satisfactory manner.

In addition, staff must at all times refrain from any form of conduct which has the potential to bring the reputation of their employer into disrepute.

 
• Be a good ambassador for their employer.

The behavior of staff, both during and outside office hours, has an impact upon the reputation of their employer.

Accordingly, staff should seek to act in a manner which is honorable to their employer at all times.

During work hours, staff must adopt a thoroughly courteous and professional approach in their dealings with all relevant stakeholders.

Outside office hours, employers need not observe all of the rules of regular office etiquette, but should nevertheless refrain from any form of conduct which could in any way bring the reputation of their company into disrepute, as noted above. This particularly applies whilst participating in any form of out of office functions or activities which are related to their employment.