Why Blame Unions?

A person would have to be isolated indeed, to have missed the media frenzy surrounding the proposed government loans to rescue the Big Three North American auto makers. In a previous article, I have outlined some of the reasons I believe it is necessary to protect manufacturing jobs, especially in the auto sector, in Ontario. Some people have expressed in the newspapers and other media, reservations and sometimes open hostility as to why unionized workers feel should earn higher wages and better benefits than other workers. Others have expressed the opinion that unionized workers should be required to take a pay cut if tax dollars are going to be used to support the auto makers. Basically, these views hinge on the, “ union workers are lazy and greedy while I work just as hard for less”, arguments favoured by those on the political right, and the corporate elite.

Unions do not have a policy of “getting more” than anyone else. As a rule, Unions hope to raise the living standards for all workers. Most, including the CAW, have programs in place to lobby the Provincial Government for increases in the minimum wage even though most of their membership tend to earn higher wages. All have programs designed to promote issues such as health and safety in the workplace, human rights, and equality issues etc. All workers benefit, in the workplace, from the impact of advances made in these areas.

In Canada 53% of the wealth is held by 10% of the households, or the top 20% control 75% of the wealth. On the other end of the scale, those households in the bottom 10% of the economic spectrum control none of the country's wealth, and in fact have a negative net worth. In point of fact, most of those who complain about unions fall into the group of 80% of the households who are in control of the remining 25% of the wealth. It is true that Labour Unions are in the business of gaining a bigger share of the wealth controlled by the corporations. They are not attempting to gain a larger share of the wealth controlled by the bottom 90% of the population. That would make no sense. They are attempting to gain a larger, more equitable share of the wealth controlled by employers. What does make sense is that when one group of workers improves their lot, all have a better chance of making the same sort of improvement. Unions are not responsible for the current economic mess in the world economic system. There are a good many structural issues that brought these conditions about; we hear about them every day on the news. Working people have not had a significant impact on the creation of the conditions that brought about this collapse. Instead of complaining that their unionized neighbours are greedy, (the envy argument), it would make much more sense for non-unionized groups to organize, and get into the business of redistributing some of the wealth that is controlled by their employers, and seeking to improve their working conditions as needed. In uncertain economic times union membership is an advantage, not a liability. Group action is always more effective than a single worker attempting to protect his or her rights.

Corporations are the benefactors when workers argue among themselves about the efficacy and validity of unions. Unionized workers aren't the enemy; they don't control corporations, or the distribution of the country's wealth. There is an injustice built into our economic system, and the sooner people see where the source of the real problem is, the sooner a remedy can be constructed. In the twenty-first century workers need to have a voice in their workplaces more than ever.