A few comments on a variety of blogs over the past few days have reminded me of the confusion I felt when I was first exposed to conservative American views on trade unions. The snide side-swipes at trade union bosses’ salaries and the scant attention to the importance of trade unions to provide for collective bargaining and essential checks and balances seemed a strange balance to me.
A little more exposure to history—particularly through John MacArthur’s ‘‘The Selling of Free Trade’—brought to my awareness the territorialism and related abuses which have stained the history of trade unionism, leaving the reasons a little more clear. Alongside that, headlines such as this one do show that there is some truth to the allegations about union bosses’ pay when some earn as much in a week as their average member does in a year.
What I have as yet been unable to dig up is any serious comparison of trade union salaries with those of similarly senior figures in the industries they lobby. Certainly it would be hypocritical for those union bosses who critique the gross rates of pay for many industry leaders to claim similarly extravagant cheques, but such a study would provide useful context. (Does anyone know of one?)
Despite the clear weaknesses of those involved in some parts of the trade union movement, it continues to seem that the opposition of many to that movement is more ideological than evidence-based. Those who argue that corporate salaries should be as high as the market would support in order to incentivise executives surely can’t complain when trade unions are run along similar lines, so long as the trade unions are careful about how much they critique corporate salaries.
The responsibility of trade union members then becomes to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, just as their leaders hold the employers accountable. In the US, members can utilise LM-2 forms to get full financial disclosure from their union.
Trade Unionism is a key tool for anyone seeking an open, accountable and fair set of labour standards. It has had many weaknesses in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, but that doesn’t negate its importance. Like any democratic mechanism, it will only work if its constituents participate fully.