NationStates Jolt Archive

UK trade union is in talks to merge together with the North American union United Steel Workers. The move would create a TU with over 3 million members. Amicus General Secretary Derek Simpson said the move was a reflection of the changing world, where union influence was in decline yet there was a growing need to fight global companies.

In a heavily globalised economy does this move represent the waxing of trade union power again? Or could it even be the beginnings of united workers conciousness that based soley around it's members economic status and bypasses artificial groupings like gender, race, religion and nationality.

Okay, maybe I'm going a little too far. But it certainly sounds interesting - the globalisation of the trade union movement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6531749.stm

It would be very difficult for it to be effective, with the different laws in different countries. Would a sympathy strike for foreign workers be legal?

It would be very difficult for it to be effective, with the different laws in different countries. Would a sympathy strike for foreign workers be legal?You wouldn't organise it like that. The TU would negotiate for, say, better wages across the board. If the company rejects the deal completely then workers in both countries can strike. I they accept then there isn't a problem. If the company only agrees to raise wages in one country, then the union can ask for higher wages in that country until the company refuses to accept and then strikes can legitimately begin in both countries. Or something like that.

You wouldn't organise it like that. The TU would negotiate for, say, better wages across the board. If the company rejects the deal completely then workers in both countries can strike. I they accept then there isn't a problem. If the company only agrees to raise wages in one country, then the union can ask for higher wages in that country until the company refuses to accept and then strikes can legitimately begin in both countries. Or something like that.

But the situation is different in the different countries. If the British cost of living is lower, for example, is it right that the British workers get paid the same amount as the Americans? Having the same number on paper isn't necessarily the same number in the real world.

It would be very difficult for it to be effective, with the different laws in different countries. Would a sympathy strike for foreign workers be legal?

Apparently so:

Although there are different labour laws in other countries, a super union could put pressure on companies and their managers, he added.

On some issues, for example pay, it would be possible to co-ordinate strikes at a company with plants in Britain and America.

I see this as a good thing, if companies are going to become more globalised then unions must follow them.

Hmm. Of two minds on this one. On one hand, we're effectively sanctioning the globalisation of Western economy, which will probably lead to a great deal more poverty in the regions that are not currently represented. On the other, there is a prospect of creating representation of the third world in a very real and powerful first world organisation.

If you want an international body, it should be a global one, IMO. A half-way scenario will worsen things, but a world-wide workers' union sounds like an awesome idea.

Well, this is a good thing, but international unions aren't really new. The IWW has been around for over a century.

Well, this is a good thing, but international unions aren't really new. The IWW has been around for over a century.The IWW never seems to have been that big. It also seems to have started as an American Trade Union, but with the word 'world' in it's name.

At it's peak the IWW only had 100,000 members, the vast majority of which were American. This new union would have over 3,000,000 members of which 1/3 would be American and 2/3 British.

It seems to me that the IWW had a bark worse than its bite, whereas this new union would actually be capable of doing something combat some of the least desireable corporate practices.

Good luck to them, I suppose. But until they get workers from Asia to join, they'll have to concentrate on advanced services...which can do without a union, because the workers are usually something close to skilled professionals.

All that being said, while I think unions are very bad at actually providing anything for their members, and I therefore refuse to join one myself, I certainly think that they have a role to play if workers want them to. And so it only makes sense for there to be multinational unions.

The IWW never seems to have been that big. It also seems to have started as an American Trade Union, but with the word 'world' in it's name.

At it's peak the IWW only had 100,000 members, the vast majority of which were American. This new union would have over 3,000,000 members of which 1/3 would be American and 2/3 British.

It seems to me that the IWW had a bark worse than its bite, whereas this new union would actually be capable of doing something combat some of the least desireable corporate practices.
True enough.

But whether they will, or succumb to some form of twisted bureaucracy favouring the status quo (as so many unions seem to be these days), remains to be seen.

The biggest problem with this is that different countries have different workplace relations laws.

If one country has laws prohibiting strikes on particular content and the other doesn't, then the union members involved in a sympathy strike may be deemed to be in breach.

Despite best intentions I think that the majority of unions and corporate governance of any description gets caught in bureaucracy and fails to aid those that they are supposed to be representing

True enough.

But whether they will, or succumb to some form of twisted bureaucracy favouring the status quo (as so many unions seem to be these days), remains to be seen.Indeed, but one can always live in hope... or delusion - whichever way you want to look at it.