FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Labor, Management and the Adversarial Relationship

There’s a well known anecdote involving Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln.  After Douglas had given a long, flowery speech during one of their public debates, Lincoln asked the audience a simple question:  “How many legs does a horse have?”  “Four,” the audience answered in unison.  “And how many legs would a horse have if you called his tail a leg?”  The audience answered in unison, “Five.”

“Wrong,” Lincoln said.  “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it true.”

Unfortunately, that same illogic applies to the startling trend we see in the field of labor relations.  Apparently, some seminar creature stood on his hind legs 25 years ago and declared that the time had come for management and labor to recognize that their relationship was no longer “adversarial” in nature, that they were, in fact, both looking to achieve the same goal.

Since then, everyone’s been parroting that glib assertion, as if the mere repetition of it makes it true.  Moreover, when one tries to suggest that the characterization is not only inaccurate, but, perhaps, part of a deliberate corporate effort to co-opt the labor movement, he’s treated—even by some union officials—as a militant or cynic or, worse, a defeatist.

This is not an attack on capitalism.  It is no more an attempt to demonize or excoriate the “profit motive” than acknowledging the presence of fangs and venom is an attempt to demonize a rattlesnake.  It’s simply pointing out the obvious, which is that management and labor clearly do not want the same thing.  They want two distinctly different things.  And it’s been that way for, well, a millennium or so.

If management and labor wanted the same thing, Exxon Mobile executives, in the face of record oil profits (more than $10 billion in a single quarter), would have instantly sought ways to reward its hourly workers.  If both sides wanted the same thing, Exxon execs would have said, “Hey, we really need to share some of this obscene oil wealth we just lucked into.”

Another example:  When the Big Three automakers were rolling in money, back in the 1960s, the UAW (United Auto Workers) still had to claw and scratch and occasionally go on strike to get the pay raises the membership deserved.  As wildly profitable as they were, Ford, Chrysler and GM nonetheless tried their hardest to keep that revenue out of the hands of the hourly employees who helped earn it.

And another example:  When a celebrity like Barbra Streisand receives, say, a lucrative recording bonus, does anyone really think she says, “Great, now I’ll be able to increase the pay of my gardener, housekeeper and that guy who walks my dog”?  No.  This is where Barb’s Malibu “liberalism” peters out, and her sense of economic self-interest kicks in.  The more they make, the more they resent parting with it.

But these observations shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Corny as it sounds, this is the way of the world:  supply and demand, charging as much as the market will bear, and paying employees no more than required to keep them from quitting—these phenomena are de facto laws of economics.  We’re all big boys and girls.  We know how it works.

Still, the one thing that sticks in our craws and makes us want to collectively puke is when corporate America pretends it’s otherwise.  When accountants and executives pretend we’re on the same “team,” when they preach that labor unions are obsolete and that workers need only trust their employers to look out for them.

By saying we want the same thing, they mean, of course, that we all want and need a stable and profitable environment.   We need jobs . . . they need workers . . . and therein lies the magic of symbiosis.  That’s why, when a new business enters a community, its public relations people are quick to remind everyone that the company is there to improve the economy by providing jobs.

But businesses do not view the workforce as a benefit; they never have and never will.  Rather, they see labor for what it is . . . pure “overhead.”  And in their relentless effort to reduce costs, American corporations are investing billions of dollars in the development of robotics.  Demoralizing as it is, they want those remaining jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and done by Third World beggars to be done by ‘droids.

Now imagine the poor shmuck who just found out he’d lost his job to a Malaysian factory worker (or to a relative of R2-D2), who pleads with his bosses to recall what they’d told him in company seminars—that we all want the same thing and are all on the same team.  Sorry, but this guy would be escorted out by security guards and drop-kicked over the front gate (ten years from now, it will be robots doing the escorting).

So, what’s all this have to do with labor unions?  Can a union prevent jobs from being outsourced or mechanized?  Probably not.  And Congress certainly isn’t courageous or imaginative enough to pass laws that would punish companies for leaving American soil or replacing live people with machines.  After all, this is the same craven group of politicians who sneaks themselves pay raises at 2:00 a.m., so as not to draw attention.

However, if 30% (instead of the current 12%) of the jobs that can’t be sent overseas or readily replaced with robots were unionized, we’d have an improved, more dynamic economy.  We’d have a more equitable economy.  We’d have the beginnings of a resurgent middle-class.  And, as “noble adversaries,” we wouldn’t have to hear anymore of that management tripe about being on the same team.

DAVID MACARAY, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was a former labor union rep.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail