A "thorny" subject. One which perhaps is fraught with controversy. You're judged to be either "for" or "against." It is either BLACK or WHITE! There are no "GREY" areas. Accordingly, one has to choose. So let us say that we are against-- ( with qualifications)!! One hopes to be judged as fair. We will attempt to be so, as far as it is possible to be JUDGED TO BE SO!

At least we were honest to give an answer--before we were to be judged. In reality, the subject should have been called "TRADE UNIONISM" and not "TRADE UNIONS." This is because we are going to comment more on the "movement" than on any specific trade union. One hopes to give a balanced judgment, and consequently hope that our comments are to be considered as "fair and unbiased comment" as far as it is possible to do so. We have steered clear of the word "unionism", specifically because people are somehow leery of any word that ends with an "ism."

It would be difficult, if not well-nigh impossible to determine where or when trades and trade unions originated. Specific trades existed and built the Egyptian temples, and that of the Greek and Roman Empires. Most likely those of the ancient Chinese Dynasties as well. Guilds, which were formed in the period we term as "Medieval Times" were certainly a recognized "union" of trades. Apprenticeship in a trade, was certainly in existence at that time. While it may be difficult to determine at what stage "union bargaining" began, it probably started at the time of the Industrial Revolution--if not earlier.

The advent of trade unionism certainly enhanced the lives of its members. Not only that of it's members, but of all workers. Working hours, working conditions, holiday time, minimum wage and a multitude of other benefits all stem primarily from union activity. Labor Law stemmed from trade union activity and became "entrenched in law" to cover a myriad facets of wages and circumstance and working conditions. One thus can never deny that trade unionism was a force for "good" as far as workers were concerned. While this may be so, nobody and nothing is perfect. There is good and bad in everyone of us, and in most things as well. So possibly as far as union activity is concerned, it has perhaps three faces. THE GOOD--THE BAD--and THE UGLY.

We do not deny the good! It existed in the past. It still exists today: And no doubt will always exist in the future. What we are concerned with are the other two faces. There is an old expression. "One man's meat is another man's poison." Different points-of-view on the same subject. Perhaps more are always in agreement when defining what is good, and less when it comes to defining what is bad or ugly. Thus it is a matter of personal opinion and perspective. However, having said that, we still hope that the opinions we shall express will be construed as fairly reasonable; fairly said and reasonably unbiased. Can one ask for anything more than that?

Let's face it. NOBODY OWES US A LIVING. Nobody!! Other than our parents--perhaps; nobody asked us to be born. Merely by the act of birth, this does not "entitle" us to a job. We may expect an equal opportunity, an equal education--or at least the equal opportunity to be educated. But a job? No! We have "no rights" as far as job creation is concerned. Once in a job--do we have rights? Yes! Either by law or by agreement. Either personal agreement between employer and employed, or that of between a union and employer if one is a member of a union. By the same token, the employer also has rights. Sometimes lost sight of. And if not--then sometimes perhaps not equal to that of those whom he employs. What "the law," and sometimes the union loses sight of on occasion--is who created the job! As a rule, unions do not create jobs. Or if on occasion they do--it is seldom so. However on a lot of occasions, by their very activity, they end up in destroying jobs.

It is difficult at times to attribute cause and effect. What caused something to happen. Or what effect an action had on a particular circumstance. Within the context of what we are about to say, we hope that we have inferred honestly, the cause and effect of either the action or inaction that we are about to refer to. Many years ago, at the time that Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the country was experiencing a period of stagflation. Perhaps "stagnation" may better describe it. Little or no economic growth. Constant and sustained trade union activity resulting in a lot of strike activity and labor strife. We are not inferring that all this was the cause of the circumstance of low economic growth. Merely that this was taking place at the time--and was shall we say "an additional aggravation." The most powerful and shall we say the most militant at the time was the Mine Workers Union. Coal was to an extent the life blood of the nation. Used industrially for manufacturing, the generation of electricity as well as for domestic heating. Constant work disruption, sporadic strikes and the threat of strikes, finally led to a decision by Margaret Thatcher to "take on the union." At the time the basic problem was the continued use of uneconomic mines. Many of these mines had been in use for literally hundreds of years, and were in many instances the largest and in some cases the only major propagator of jobs available to the small villages and towns close by. Close these mines down-- and these towns and villages would literally die. The workers fears were understandable. The union called for a general strike.

Very few if any governments in history have taken on the unions. The party in power is ever mindful of the fact that they are reliant on the votes of the populace in order to remain in power. What seems to have been the deciding factor in this instance was the conception by the general population that the mineworkers were going too far in their militancy as time went by. In order to keep industries in production and electricity available, the government was forced to import coal. The miners retaliated by calling on the unions controlling the docks to not unload these coal-carrying ships. Other unions were asked to show their displeasure by either threatening strike action, or to go on sporadic strike in order to bring the government down. The Mine Workers Union strike lasted, if ones memory is correct, for about 10 / 11 months. By this time they had lost the sympathy and support of a large proportion of the population, as well as their financial muscle to continue. A compromise solution was sought and found. Uneconomic mines were fazed out of production over a period of time.

We used the term "cause and effect" as it may apply to a circumstance. While the miners strike was not seen to be the cause of the beginning of an upsurge in the economic growth in Great Britain, the effect of the governments resolve in not buckling or backing down, certainly was. From that period onwards, the unions in that country started to act more responsibly, and with relevant labor peace came ever increasing prosperity. At one time union membership of the work force in the United States exceeded 40%. By the mid 1990's it had dropped to 19% and at the turn of the century it was said to be about 16% of the work force. The interpretation of figures can often be misleading. But these figures must have some relevance. Either the economic well-being of the workforce is such that the requirement to be a member has less relevance today than in the past, or the movement itself becomes either less relevant or perhaps less effective than was required in the past. What is apparent, and markedly so in most countries around the world, labor peace and prosperity go "hand-in -hand" and labor strife has just the opposite effect. No corporation would locate or invest in any country where it is seen to be having constant labor problems.

Having said that economic growth and labor responsibility are complementary factors, one should give an example. Some years ago the Autoworkers Union were considered to be pretty militant whenever it came around to re-negotiating a new contract. In economics there is a limit to costs. There comes a time when rising costs just cannot be "passed along to the consumer." Sales are affected and profits diminish, resulting eventually in possible job loss in order to either contain costs or cope with lower output. A stage was reached where certain manufacturers were faced with the possibility of either closing plants or cutting working hours. Sales were dropping, share prices down and the available finance to keep going, seemed not to be available. Who came to the rescue? THE AUTOWORKERS UNION. They poured in millions of dollars from union funds to keep those production lines functioning. Since that time, although there is still some tough and hard bargaining when new contracts are being negotiated, the demands are said to be more reasonable and always open to a compromise. There is less in-your -face confrontation and constant threat of strike action.

Which leads us to "strike action"! Are strikes necessary? And are they justifiable? Union organizers and union officials would answer "yes" to both questions. Let us for a moment in time agree with them. There is in most countries of the world a "Charter of Rights." They are not the same in each and every country. But where they do exist, the rights thereof are jealously guarded by its citizens. Of paramount importance is the understanding that each and every right is-- or should be EQUAL TO ALL. Thus when someone exercises a right that impinges on those of others, it no longer becomes fair and equal to all. And this is when strike actions results become questionable tactics. Who has the greater right? Two hundred union members; two thousand--or even twenty thousand; as against that of maybe 50,000 or 500,000 citizens of a town or city? One must surely state that the greater right lies with the greatest number of people affected by the actions of the lesser number. If one therefore presumes that we should always allow for "the right to strike," then surely it makes sense to lay down rigid rules of application and conduct to preclude this action from impinging on anyone else's rights--irrespective of how many or how few are inconvenienced by the action. We are not talking about any particular country. Is it by design or purely a coincidence that the teachers go on strike just before or just after the commencement of a new school year. Why NEVER in the middle or the beginning of the long summer holidays? Somehow or other postal strikes--or the threat to strike coincides with that busiest time of the year; the approach of Xmas. Transport Union Workers somehow find it necessary to strike in the middle of winter, paralyzing traffic attempting to get people to work, be it bus or underground transport workers--or both going on strike Garbage collection, hospital workers and ancillary units endanger the health of hundreds of thousands of people. Dockworkers and truck drivers can bring industry and business to a standstill and endanger the health and livelihood of millions of people. Is this wise--and is this necessary? Surely the right to strike should be severely circumscribed. If laws limit the power of presidents, police, the judiciary and government, then surely it is necessary to limit the power of unions to strike? The power to strike and the use of strike action, if not to be eliminated altogether, should surely be such that its use be severely restricted and its consequences to others be limited in scope.

Imagine the consequences were the Firemen or the police to go on strike. Government somehow at times are loath or slow to react to the consequences of strike action. They are ever mindful of "votes" and do not want to be seen as "anti-union." Even unionized government workers going on strike are at times treated with kid gloves, before government reverts to the courts to seek relief, requesting that the court order the workers back to work. As the courts are independent of government, this "subterfuge fools no one. It is merely seen by all that the government has neither the courage or "guts" to take on the union and order them back to work. In France and Italy the unions and combines such as that of farmers have by their actions toppled government, or paralyzed the production or movement of foodstuff. In the attempt to stabilize the production and price of foodstuff in Europe at the time of European Union, endless problems were encountered by governments from unions and vested interests.

What of picketing? Is this necessary, and should it be allowed? What does it accomplish? The right of assembly. Who would deny that? To organize a march down a street; provided civic authority acceptance seems reasonable. A protest assembly in a hall or at a stadium--no one would surely quibble with that? However, assembly to impede or obstruct access by anyone to a business or company is maybe questionable. One gets back to the argument about the equalness of rights and the infringement of the rights of others. Putting aside the word "union" and the word "strike"-- what right has anyone in denying someone else access to a particular place? NONE WHAT-SO-EVER!! Therefore it should be illegal to picket a business or a building and deny the free flow of people, goods and services into and out of those premises.

If a strike has been called, it is in essence "the with-holding of one's labor." Not being willing to work. Fair enough. So don't go to work. Stay at home or go shopping. Whatever! What right has one, either alone or in concert with others, to impede others from accessing those premises. Once one has demonstrated the fact that they are not happy with the conditions of their employment, for whatever reason or reasons, then surely it gives others the right to seek employment at that business, should they be happy to accept the conditions of employment there? For that matter, those already employed there have every right to go to work should they be in disagreement with the choice of "strike".

Nobody is chained to their workplace. Whether one is a member of a union or not, there are surely agreed upon rules and practice of employment at the time one is accepted for the position. Salary and work hours, holiday time and maybe pension and health arrangements and "notice time period." Should there come a time that the employee sees an opportunity to better themselves, be it for higher wages, better working conditions or added benefits or convenience of travel to work, the required "notice time" is given and accepted. Whether the person concerned has been employed there for one month--a year--or ten years. They have every right to do so. By the same token the employer, should he wish to retain the services of a valued employee, may try to meet the aspirations of the one wishing to leave. However, when notice is given, the employee is under no obligation to give any reason for leaving. On many occasions, should it suit the employee, some leave without notice. So here we have touched upon the right of the employee to leave employment.

So let us now examine the rights of the employer. One would expect that if one has the "right to hire"--they have the "right to fire." It does not work that way. Many times it is not that simple an exercise. There are a number of avenues available to the employee to make things unpleasant and difficult for the employer, should one choose to do so. We will not examine these, as our concern in this article is with trade unions. One would think that there would be little or no difficulty in dispensing with the services of an employee if they be a union member. After all, the member has every right to leave his employment without hindrance, provided the necessary notice has been given. And no reason for termination has to be supplied. Not so for the employer. There are rigid union rules and procedures which have to be followed, before one can dispense with the services of a union member. Depending on the particular union and the country in which it operates - here are some of the problems that arise. If one is dissatisfied with a worker, a verbal warning must be given, and then followed in writing . It does not end there. In a lot of cases, this has to be repeated three times before written notice is given. However, before this is completed, the problem has to be taken up with the union's in-house "grievance committee." There is no guarantee that only one meeting will be held. Should the grievance committee not agree that the employer has sufficient grounds to fire the worker, either strike action is threatened if the employer defies the union--or the dispute goes to a "Labor Relations Board." We will not go into some of the rulings which have resulted from these hearings. Let us just say that these hearings satisfy no one. The winner is aggrieved at the time and expense spent at these hearings - and the loser is forever resentful at having lost. Should the loser be the union - well for a long time to come the employer had better be prepared for a torrid time, especially at the next round of a contract negotiation. One must also keep in mind that not all Labor Relations Board rulings are accepted. They are often appealed. These procedures which apply when an employer wishes to dispense with one or more workers are more than likely written into the contract between the union and the employer, and thus the employer is bound by law to adhere to them. What we are saying is that this is an unfair labor practice - and bad in law. The rights of the owner is not equal to the rights of the employee. AND THEY SHOULD BE! On many occasions employers have been forced by unions to re-employ a worker or workers either by threat of strike action, or threat to take the case to "The Board" or to the courts. Why must this be so? Surely "the right to hire--the right to fire" rule should be valid in law. In other words, if there is no EQUAL RIGHT to both parties, it should never be allowed to be embodied into a contract in the first place.

Threat of Boycott. Governments have used this on occasion to influence a situation in another country. The procedure to get this passed into law is no easy task, and often fraught with controversy. To get it to operate universally-- or by several countries has often proved to be impossible. Yet when a union is on strike or threatens to strike, they use this threat in order to get their way. Surely this should not be allowed. Why should the general public be dragged into the dispute. Why should anyone be coerced into not doing business with another. We do not intend to "Pussyfoot"-Foot" around this one! It is MEAN--UNDERHAND and UNFAIR. It should be outlawed by law and whether requested verbally or in written form--or even used as a threat, should be subject to heavy penalties imposed by the courts. PERIOD!!

Another point which we feel should be aired, is "out-sourcing" This is a term used when a business or a manufacturer has work done by others not directly employed by them. In other words, the owner decides that the work or service can be done either at a cheaper cost, or better done or cheaper and better done than what can be accomplished "in-house."( His own plant or business.) Paramount to the issue and our view is that one should NEVER EVER lose sight of the fact as to-----"whose business is this anyway?!!" Surely the owner of a business; the one taking all the risks and whose capital is at stake, has the SOLE RIGHT to determine the policy and conduct of his business? One can understand the fear generated in employees in thinking that at some stage or another this may endanger their very employment. Yet if it can be done cheaper or better elsewhere, surely the right to the decision must rest solely with the owner? There are literally hundreds of decisions taken on a daily basis by management, all of which could affect one or more or even all the jobs of one's employees. Yet why is this one singled out for labor dispute. We are not going to pursue this point further, other than to state that these decisions are not within the purview of union action.

We have reached the final subject-matter of this article, one which we feel is the "thorniest" of them all. This one "WE WILL PUSSY-FOOT AROUND." Yet, having said that, we still feel it should be aired and shall we say, "set up for discussion." The question we raise is; "should unionization be allowed?" Note the word used. "UNIONIZATION." This we would like to tackle from one--and ONLY ONE perspective. The right to make the decision. We will qualify that even more. THE EQUAL RIGHT to make a decision. The present set-up in most countries in the world where workers have the right to form a union, is that when a certain number of people are employed at the same company or business, they are entitled by law to form a union. The numbers differ in each country, and the terms within which this may be done, also differ. They may as well, join another already registered union, rather than start their own. This sounds fair enough. Now let us turn to the one WHO STARTS A BUSINESS. Again we get back to that OTHER THORNY SUBJECT. "The equal right to.........." Here one arrives at a peculiar situation. In a number of countries the law allows a choice. The owner of a business can elect not to be unionized. For example in some countries, the Construction Industry can elect to be non-union. So union members who move to a non- union construction company cannot demand that this particular company recognize their union. There are other isolated instances as well, and as we said before, they differ from country to country. Yet if one wants to be logical about it, why cannot all businesses and companies make that decision? We are not for one moment advocating that it HAS TO BE DONE--just that there should surely be an equal choice between labor and management in making that decision. A person who starts a business surely has the right to state to any one being interviewed--"look, we are not a "union" organization. We do not want to be--or ever intend to be. Should you join our organization, we would like you to sign an acknowledgement that this has been stated to you before you join us, and undertake to adhere to these principles." Before you shout "Discrimination" .....think about it! One readily understands that should the law allow such choice, that logically most companies would make "that logical choice." We are going to leave it at that.

Having read this far, we hope that we will have been judged to have been----shall we say reasonably fair in our comments and assumptions. We do not want to cause offence--and if we are judged to have done so, then we wish to make an apology. More than that we cannot do.