Labor unions play a key role in protecting workers’ rights, securing better working conditions, serving as intermediaries between employers and employees, and reducing inequality in society.
As independent organizations, they are part of civil society. Civil society generally consists of non-state actors—including voluntary organizations—that have an organized structure and work to influence societal development. Civil society is nevertheless often dependent on political goodwill, as Pål Trælvik explains in this interview with Oagal.
The concept of a labor union/trade union belongs to civil society, not to any single organization.
See and hear more: This YouTube video presents the benefits of labor unions, using the premise “why employers in the United States hate them.”
At one time, labor unions and labor parties were part of the same movement to secure equal rights and conditions for all people in society. The movement emerged in a world marked by deep and unjust resource inequality and unhealthy working conditions.
For advocates of all kinds of causes, it can be difficult to see where the fine lines lie, both overall and in individual cases. It is a natural part of any struggle to go too far and then adjust—whether in statements, alliances, or benefits achieved. Success can also be blinding and can place people in leadership and power positions where lack of education, experience, and temptation make the journey difficult. When labor unions grow large enough to become major employers themselves, leaders may, for example, end up confronting their own contradictions.
From the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, developments occurred that collective memory often associates with the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the United States under President Ronald Reagan—himself a former union leader for actors in California.
Among other things, the strike weapon was threatened and used so extensively that society—represented by these politicians as prominent exponents—moved to curb the power of labor unions. It is easy to think the conflict was simply between the political right and left. In reality, both politicians depended on broad support across the population, much of which had been affected by abuses of power by unions that went too far.
See and hear also: Margaret Thatcher on the labor movement.
While unions went too far in their use of power, the response—particularly in the United States—went too far as well. The conflicts between employers and workers are so powerful that they reach Norwegian media, as when NRK reports an NTB dispatch on Amazon employees’ efforts to unionize.
Oagal has also observed that when planning new factories, employers threaten to locate production abroad if workers unionize. Alternatively, employees who do not unionize may be offered higher hourly wages than union members. This is effective because wages are a key concern, and many may be tempted.
The result is that unions fail to gain the solidarity and support necessary to act as counterparts on other critical issues such as working hours, safety, support in employer–employee conflicts, and predictable shift schedules. In retail in the United States, it is common for employers to unilaterally control shift schedules. The consequence is that workers lack predictability in when they will work or for how long. It is easy to imagine how untenable this is for anyone seeking a normal life outside of work, including maintaining a manageable financial situation and supporting children in daycare and school.
Overall, there can be little doubt that the weakened role of labor unions is one element in the weakening of the United States as a leading nation, including with respect to the welfare of its residents.
Read also: What we can learn from the Norwegian project to improve society.
In Norway, relations between politicians and labor unions have been less confrontational than in the United Kingdom and the United States. According to ChatGPT, however, from the late 1980s and through the 1990s, legislative changes made it harder for unions to maintain the same level of power as before, particularly in the private sector.
Seen from the outside, the three parties—workers’ organizations, employers’ organizations, and the state—appear to have found a balance in their tripartite cooperation. Strikes are sometimes halted by the government through compulsory arbitration when they risk causing excessive harm to society, and unions seem to accept this regardless of which parties are in government.
Read in Nettavisen: Resembles political corruption when red-green sponsors demand power, money, and positions.
The most well-known example in Norway is the power constellation between LO-affiliated unions and the Labour Party. In the 2021 parliamentary election year, the party received contributions totaling NOK 32.1 million from organizations in working life, according to party-financing figures compiled by Oagal.
It also appears that LO places its own representatives as cabinet ministers, in addition to placing other union members on public payrolls through political appointments in a well-known “political industry” tradition.
Frifagbevegelse.no reports that Sweden’s LO is ending its support for the Social Democrats, while Norway’s LO continues to support the Labour Party. “In the 2022 parliamentary election, more than 60 percent of LO members voted for a party other than the Social Democrats,” the outlet writes. Newly elected Swedish LO leader Johan Lindholm calls it outdated to provide party support to a party that members do not necessarily vote for.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments