I have been in manufacturing for many years, starting with an internship in Ford’s Dearborn plant in the 70’s. I would never work in a unionized shop because of all of the inefficiencies that were ‘won’ by the unions in negotiation with management.
At the same time, I share your dismay at the wealth concentration that occurs when labor is exploited.
The best that I can come up with is legally mandated minimum compensation, but that is open to corruption as well.
The question is: how do you get the capital voice and the labor voice working together for both short and long term success for the enterprise, employees, and investors?
You’ve stated a convincing case for labor’s need to have power. How does that power not be abused, just as capital’s power is now being abused?[/quote]
Good question. IMHO, the answer lies in the *balance* of power, with checks and balances that make sure neither side is able to fully exploit unilateral power. It is the balance of power that keeps corruption in check (as much as possible), and ensures that the majority have a voice in how the economy works for everyone involved. As of now, the power is almost entirely tilted toward capital. That’s what’s causing so many of the problems in our economy, IMO.[/quote]
Part of the problem though is labor isn’t really fighting capital directly anymore in most cases. The most powerful labor unions are going to the government for more money/resources and while they might prefer the government getting those resources from the capital owners they’ll take it from where ever they can get it. I think that’s why labor unions have lost the sympathy of the common man. The common man sees labor demanding more taxes and when capital shows up to push those taxes onto the common man the common man sees both groups being greedy bastards.
