Is strike action a mandate to extort?

Labour Q&A with Terry Bell

A Fin24 user believes that the entrenchment of the rights for workers is a form of monopoly. Robert Benbow-Hebbert writes:

I believe that the entrenchment by government of rights of workers is simply providing those who are fortunate enough to have a job with a licence to exercise monopoly power over the market to the detriment of those who could and would, but who are excluded from, competing with them on the basis of price (wages).  

The effect on the economy is the very same as that of issuing monopoly charters to businesses - a smaller, poorer and more expensive economy, with a less equal and more unfair distribution of wealth and income and a lower level of employment.

The mere fact that the union federations work so hard to influence government, especially by "alliances" with political parties, discloses these to be powerful vested interests arrayed against the common man to benefit those privileged. To dress up a mandate to extort by collusive action as "justice" is disingenuous.

Terry Bell responds:

Robert, your argument is serious flawed. Control of the market - to the degree that it exists - relates to corporate monopolies that manipulate prices and move production around the world.  

Your "competition on the basis of wages" argument seems to be the encouragement of a dog-eat-dog environment that amounts to what has - correctly, I think - been termed a race to the bottom. Such an environment benefits only those who already own and control the entities that make up the market.

Of course union federations try to influence governments. Just as do the more powerful corporations.  

And government and businesses also try to exercise control over trade unions because they recognise the potential power these have. As Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi noted (belatedly) last week: trade unions should remain independent. 

This is because alliances with political parties - especially those in government - actually weaken the unions because they come more under the influence of the party than the democratic control of their members.

To regard strike action as a mandate to extort is actually disingenuous on your part. What about the licence you appear to claim: the mandate of a small minority to economically exploit the majority. But I suppose we shall continue to agree to disagree.

* Add your voice or just drop Terry a labour question.
 
- Fin24

* Follow Terry on twitter @telbelsa.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.