I've only had time to skim Leo Troy's "Beyond Unions and Collective Bargaining", so it would be presumptuous and hypocritical for me to label his argument "superficial". Troy seems to be saying that unions are inherently monopolistic and protectionist and thus are doomed in a dynamic, competitive economy. Although I think Troy's answers to the questions he raises about unionism are inadequate and based on idealistic assumptions about the economy, the questions themselves are worth considering. More specifically, I would venture to say that Troy's prognosis fits "actually existing unions". Even with all the good intentions in the world, it is hard to imagine an incremental change from those to some kind of new paradigm of unionism. Vignette: A friend has been "in the doghouse" at work because of his union activism. He is a union staffer active in the staff union. As employers, unions sometimes find it hard to practice what they preach. Vignette: Another friend has been very active in promoting a progressive union policy on overtime. The biggest obstacle to the policy appears to be the attitudes of members, not of employers. I have had the luxury of observing, over the last 25 years, quite a few friends bore from within organized labor and become the people referred to in the papers as "labor bosses". When I talk to them about strategy, it predictably triggers the lecture about the glacial imperatives of their organizations. From such a perspective there is not much that can be done other than wait until the next ice age of union advance. The problem with that theory is employers' organizations have been active for a century altering the climate so there won't be another ice age. There are some clues about the methodology of climate change in the activities of such organizations as the Council on Union-Free Environment, the National Right-to-Work Organization, the National Association of Manufacturers. This is not to say that the decline of organized labor has been solely the result of some "conspiracy". Rather a coherent, comprehensive anti-union strategy has evolved that feeds on and amplifies union vulnerabilities. The ultimate tragic irony is that in some respects organized labor and the organized anti-union strategy have developed a co-dependent relationship. After I came across Leo Troy's book (mentioned on the N.A.M. website) I did a quick search for critical replies and haven't found any yet. If someone knows of a response, I would be interested in hearing about it. Temps Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant
