Unions throughout the world exhibit varying strengths and focuses. From the Swedish example of near total unionization in all industries, one sees the use of many unions negotiating to prevent gridlock and meet the needs of individuals. In Germany, a conservative system sees much less unionization, but very powerful unions on top set standardized rates for all industries below them. The United States sees weaker unions, incapable of full negotiating, primarily focusing on worker coordinated actions in protest against their businesses and government. These three nations and their respective unions share the same reality however. Unions act as monopolies, requiring near total control and lack of competition over their commodity, in this case
…show more content…
Unions, after all, were designed to ensure that workers and labour were not treated as solely a commodity designed to be spent, but as individuals with needs and livelihoods. Decommodification of workers would be a priority of these workers, with the intent of improving their lives, rather than just the value of the work they bring, at the center of a union’s mind. In Sweden, further focus on centralization, with national negotiations between the firms and unions, permitted for a flexible yet efficient development of the labour market, along with peaceful employee-employer relations. (Bowman 185) The Swedish example shows a heavy mix of unionization monopoly, and through it a collective voice. Sweden’s unions would actively force its members to join political parties, and push to have the union take an active role in the government to change regulations on industries. The monopoly on labour forced employers to come to negotiating tables, where, rather than demand unfair advantages, the unions agreed to set rules on their activities in favour of permitting employers certain authority. Employers, happy to know of agreements to not protest, agreed to enforce better wages and conditions. Sweden’s monopolistic face is arguably the most apparent, but its actions post-monopoly show that it was just as concerned for the well-being of the …show more content…
Despite lower unionization rates than Sweden, the few powerful sets of unions within the nation set strong standards for the rest of the country to follow. These standards are incorporated by non-unionized firms in attempt to remain competitive to labour overall. The German model does not mandate every individual unionize, or organize party membership along it akin to the Swedish model. Rather, it works to actively involve employees in the management of their firms. This integral part of the German model is best described as codetermination, wherein workers determine their own fate with the employers themselves. Silvia describes this codetermination as, “among the foundational pillars of the German economic order” and notes that while employees are given strong advantages they are not entirely in command. (43) The German work councils as they are called, benefitted from the union negotiations at the top. These top level negotiations allowed workers to hold their own firms accountable, using the large union’s achieved results as example of what should be done. The ultimate use of the voice face of unions in Germany comes when the union can negotiate without actively needing you in
Unions, after all, were designed to ensure that workers and labour were not treated as solely a commodity designed to be spent, but as individuals with needs and livelihoods. Decommodification of workers would be a priority of these workers, with the intent of improving their lives, rather than just the value of the work they bring, at the center of a union’s mind. In Sweden, further focus on centralization, with national negotiations between the firms and unions, permitted for a flexible yet efficient development of the labour market, along with peaceful employee-employer relations. (Bowman 185) The Swedish example shows a heavy mix of unionization monopoly, and through it a collective voice. Sweden’s unions would actively force its members to join political parties, and push to have the union take an active role in the government to change regulations on industries. The monopoly on labour forced employers to come to negotiating tables, where, rather than demand unfair advantages, the unions agreed to set rules on their activities in favour of permitting employers certain authority. Employers, happy to know of agreements to not protest, agreed to enforce better wages and conditions. Sweden’s monopolistic face is arguably the most apparent, but its actions post-monopoly show that it was just as concerned for the well-being of the …show more content…
Despite lower unionization rates than Sweden, the few powerful sets of unions within the nation set strong standards for the rest of the country to follow. These standards are incorporated by non-unionized firms in attempt to remain competitive to labour overall. The German model does not mandate every individual unionize, or organize party membership along it akin to the Swedish model. Rather, it works to actively involve employees in the management of their firms. This integral part of the German model is best described as codetermination, wherein workers determine their own fate with the employers themselves. Silvia describes this codetermination as, “among the foundational pillars of the German economic order” and notes that while employees are given strong advantages they are not entirely in command. (43) The German work councils as they are called, benefitted from the union negotiations at the top. These top level negotiations allowed workers to hold their own firms accountable, using the large union’s achieved results as example of what should be done. The ultimate use of the voice face of unions in Germany comes when the union can negotiate without actively needing you in