Paradox of Labor Unions: Tragedy of the commons
When what is beneficial for the part is not beneficial for the whole it’s phrased as the ‘tragedy of the commons’. This occurs in most aspects of life around us, when the government bears deficit but runs public transport, when one business unit’s profit is dependent on same resources required for the other business unit’s profits and when labor union as an institution is beneficial for its individual members but ostensibly not for the organization and the society as a whole.
The need for organizing most often stems from a continual dissatisfaction with the conditions and terms of employment. It also, at a more philosophical level, is born from a need to have a voice in the decisions that affect an individual directly or indirectly. At a more basic level it sprouts from the need to feel secure and obtain a peace of mind in terms of the warm blanket provided by the sheer power of the numbers organizing together in a union.
Whatever be the reason, the ‘tipping point’ for the union to materialize in an organization can be understood by what Gladwell writes in his book as:
The Law of the few: Where individuals with the propensity, skills and values to organize infect others with their ideas.
Stickiness: When ‘organizing’ as a concept is bought by other individuals and grows exponentially because of its attractiveness in the given circumstances.
The Power of Context: When the conditions of work serve as an incubator to bring the idea into reality in the form of a union.
What this implies is that organizing ‘tips’ into an epidemic if all the above conditions exist.
Thus, labor unions serve as a means to attain satisfaction for its members for all needs defined by Maslow: physiological, safety, belonging, esteem and self actualization. Also it means that union as an institution cannot be snubbed if its time has come.
Unfortunately the immediate reaction to a union, of the individuals on the ‘other side of the table’ from the employees, is that of defensiveness. The reflex action to the act of employees’ organizing is to resist which results in the other side pushing back harder. The source of this reaction can be traced back to the ‘tragedy of commons’ where the management works in defined resource constraints and existence of a union puts further pressure on it. So what seems to be best for the employees hurts the bottom line of the company. This is further extrapolated by some thinkers to the society as a whole paying the cost of the existence of a union in terms of worker migration to non-union environment due to wage differentials and inflation per se. Some also argue about the corruption, politics and misuse of funds by union leaders.
But if we scratch the surface and look deeper, the paradox of labor unions is another example of the eternal tug-of-war between the long-term and short term vision of the organization. An organization suffering from myopia would argue that the resources channelised to meet the demands of the union can be used for making a better product and hence benefiting all. But an organization which has matured to hold a long-term view realizes that the cost to pay for the existence of a union is meager compared to the long-term benefits derived out of satisfied employees who have the peace of mind of having their voices heard and being treated fairly and justly. An intelligent or how some authors describe it as ‘union shocked’ management would work symbiotically with the union toward a workforce that develops a feeling of belongingness to the organization. A ‘wise’ management would realize that the benefits that workers derive from a union go beyond obtaining higher wages. As some studies confirm the benefits crystallize in terms of higher morale, higher job satisfaction and hence higher productivity and lower turnover.
In an ideal world, sans the complexities of human dynamics, the management of an organization would proactively work toward creating conditions and terms of employment that would serve all needs of the employees metamorphosing them into satisfied, dedicated workers, but until organizations learn to emulate the benefits of labor unions in a non-union setting, the need and existence of unions cannot and should not be denied.
When what is beneficial for the part is not beneficial for the whole it’s phrased as the ‘tragedy of the commons’. This occurs in most aspects of life around us, when the government bears deficit but runs public transport, when one business unit’s profit is dependent on same resources required for the other business unit’s profits and when labor union as an institution is beneficial for its individual members but ostensibly not for the organization and the society as a whole.
The need for organizing most often stems from a continual dissatisfaction with the conditions and terms of employment. It also, at a more philosophical level, is born from a need to have a voice in the decisions that affect an individual directly or indirectly. At a more basic level it sprouts from the need to feel secure and obtain a peace of mind in terms of the warm blanket provided by the sheer power of the numbers organizing together in a union.
Whatever be the reason, the ‘tipping point’ for the union to materialize in an organization can be understood by what Gladwell writes in his book as:
The Law of the few: Where individuals with the propensity, skills and values to organize infect others with their ideas.
Stickiness: When ‘organizing’ as a concept is bought by other individuals and grows exponentially because of its attractiveness in the given circumstances.
The Power of Context: When the conditions of work serve as an incubator to bring the idea into reality in the form of a union.
What this implies is that organizing ‘tips’ into an epidemic if all the above conditions exist.
Thus, labor unions serve as a means to attain satisfaction for its members for all needs defined by Maslow: physiological, safety, belonging, esteem and self actualization. Also it means that union as an institution cannot be snubbed if its time has come.
Unfortunately the immediate reaction to a union, of the individuals on the ‘other side of the table’ from the employees, is that of defensiveness. The reflex action to the act of employees’ organizing is to resist which results in the other side pushing back harder. The source of this reaction can be traced back to the ‘tragedy of commons’ where the management works in defined resource constraints and existence of a union puts further pressure on it. So what seems to be best for the employees hurts the bottom line of the company. This is further extrapolated by some thinkers to the society as a whole paying the cost of the existence of a union in terms of worker migration to non-union environment due to wage differentials and inflation per se. Some also argue about the corruption, politics and misuse of funds by union leaders.
But if we scratch the surface and look deeper, the paradox of labor unions is another example of the eternal tug-of-war between the long-term and short term vision of the organization. An organization suffering from myopia would argue that the resources channelised to meet the demands of the union can be used for making a better product and hence benefiting all. But an organization which has matured to hold a long-term view realizes that the cost to pay for the existence of a union is meager compared to the long-term benefits derived out of satisfied employees who have the peace of mind of having their voices heard and being treated fairly and justly. An intelligent or how some authors describe it as ‘union shocked’ management would work symbiotically with the union toward a workforce that develops a feeling of belongingness to the organization. A ‘wise’ management would realize that the benefits that workers derive from a union go beyond obtaining higher wages. As some studies confirm the benefits crystallize in terms of higher morale, higher job satisfaction and hence higher productivity and lower turnover.
In an ideal world, sans the complexities of human dynamics, the management of an organization would proactively work toward creating conditions and terms of employment that would serve all needs of the employees metamorphosing them into satisfied, dedicated workers, but until organizations learn to emulate the benefits of labor unions in a non-union setting, the need and existence of unions cannot and should not be denied.
posted by Garima at 9:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home