Instead of unionizing, why doesn't labor just become a corporation, then

[begin_within]

negotiate with employing corporations for good wages, benefits and working conditions?
"Oops, sorry, but I'm actually not a Wal-Mart employee, I'm an employee of Retail Employees Corporation, so if you want me to work that day I had scheduled for a day off, you'll just have to contact my employer about it."

[tk2kewl]

1. interesting idea

a gigantic employment agency

[Nay]

2. Hmmm, that's a really good idea. We'd have to get nearly everyone to

join or they would just hire the equivalent of scabs, but maybe it's doable. Especially if the workers are trained and educated and make excellent employees.

[stevietheman]

3. It seems to me that with contemporary technologies...

it wouldn't be that difficult to create flexible labor pools fronted by corporations... not temps, but full-time contractors. Turn everyone into contractors! This, coupled with national health insurance, sounds like the future.

[sandnsea]

Home health care works that way

The nurses and aides work under one umbrella company, they have contracts with Medicaid, insurance, private people, I don't know who all. The workers don't always know who is paying the bills, they just go out and do the work. I think the way they treat their workers has improved in the last few years, it was kind of shaky in the beginning though. At least with an employee corporation, you would eliminate all the union bashing.

[sandnsea]

4. Dupe post

[iamjoy]

5. In A Way, Aren't They?

In some states, you can only work in certain jobs if you are Union.

Are Unions for profit or not for profit? If they have moeny to give to political campaigns, it seems like some one is making money off of these dues.

Besides, why would Wal-Mart pay Retail Employees Corporation $10 an hour for a cashier when they can hire a cashire directly off of the street for $6/hr?

Your idea is good at heart.

[sandnsea]

6. Training, quality

Lots of reasons it would be better to contract with an employee corporation. Steady supply of workers, fully trained, probations fulfilled, reduction in bureaucrtic overhead. This actually makes alot of sense to me.

[pattim]

9. Those would be the exact same reasons to have

a union. But nonunion labor is cheaper, and that's all walmart cares about.

[sandnsea]

10. Unions don't train

They don't verify the quality of the employee. An employee corporation would. I'm very pro-union, but I'm also open to anything that would give workers a stronger voice. If an employee corporation is what it would take, then I'm all for it.

[pattim]

11. The local carpenter's union

advertises its training programs to both employers and prospective members.

[sandnsea]

13. Retail Employee Corporation

That's what the OP said and was referring to those kinds of jobs. As to carpenters, I don't know any union carpenters as it is, which is kind of the problem. Too much of that work is already being done by illegal labor and the unions don't seem to be able to stop it. A corporation, on the other hand, would be held to legal requirements much easier. Maybe there would still be a need for a union to protect workers from the corporation, but I can also see alot more strength in being under a corporate umbrella than what we've got now.

[NanceGreggs]

7. GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!

Then the new 'Corporation' of US workers has to set up an off-shore mailbox (uh, I mean 'heaquarters'), where their pay will be deposited, and then sent back to them. Then you can tell the IRS that your wages are non-taxable because they are derived from a foreign country.

What works for the likes of other corporations should work for the little guy, too!!!!!!!!!!!

Just a thought. ;)

[newyawker99]

26. Hi NanceGreggs!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[pattim]

8. Because that is an absolutely ridiculous idea.

That is a union, only called a corporation. Where does the corporation make its money from? Ah, I see, either by dues or by skimming off wages. And how does it determine how much money to make? A vote by the employees? Ah, then it's a union. A vote by a board of directors? Oh, then I suppose these corporate workers need a union to protect them from their union.

Is only one "corporation" allowed? Can there be several? If there can be as many as you want, then it's like there's no union at all--Wal-Mart will only hire from the cheapest one, which due to market pressure will invariably be minimum wage or close to it. If there can only be one for each field, then that's no different than our union system.

Really. How on Earth is this different than a union?

[unblock]

12. there are differences, and similarities

a key difference is the legal relationships. in this model, your employment relationship is with the labor provider, not the client company. this means that the client company doesn't have to directly worry about paying your benefits, nor does it have to worry about legal procedure when they fire you.

however, they do have to worry about maintaining a good BUSINESS relationship with the labor provider. the labor company can achieve its union-like aims by threatening to refuse to provide labor to the entire company. however, it suffers from a lack of exclusivity; the client company can sever its relationship with the labor provider and go back to hiring individuals directly.

the labor provider can only be effective if it can control the labor forces. i.e., there needs to be a monopoly or trust among labor providers.

[sandnsea]

14. Provide superior labor force

That would be the way for this kind of corporation to be effective, it doesn't have to be a monopoly at all. It has to function so efficiently that it just doesn't make sense to hire direct. A monopoly would be a horrible idea because the one thing we don't want is for every burger flipping job to be handled by one company. Then they really could manipulate wages and benefits. There would need to be competition to make it work, it seems to me.

[unblock]

17. i'm just trying to show the analogy to unions

i agree that providing efficiencies and superior product (labor) is the ideal solution.

however, the analogy to a union strike at a union-only plant would only work if no other labor provider existed or was in a position to serve that particular client. which would be a monopoly.

[sandnsea]

20. Imagine this though

Let's say one company contracted with several grocery stores. Instead of it just being one local that goes on strike, the company pulls its workers from every contracted grocery store in the country. The entire chain is left in the lurch. That gives great power for the corporation to get a good contract. And let's say you keep the unions. Then the union walks out on many grocery stores all over the country, who put pressure on the employee corporation, and its not just a few stores in one local.

[bluedawg12]

15. Work for a union who would then subcontract you out?

Their goal being profit?

Or non-profit?

of course a whole new layer of costly administration would have to be developed. Thus causing inflation and perhaps lowering wages.

Interesting but a bit like exachanging one master for another. No?

[sandnsea]

16. Shared administration

No. Target, Shopko, Kmart, all hire from one contractor. Health care benefits and HR costs are shared, reducing the costs, not adding to them. Same thing for grocery workers. Maybe you'd work Safeway this week and Albertson's next week and Kroger 6 months down the road. Highly skilled, flexible, job security, room for advancement. I can see alot of benefits to workers from this kind of arrangement.

[bluedawg12]

21. Why not have collective bargaining as unions do,

and keep them arms length from being management.

My concern is that it would be just that- a corporation and workers rights would fall victim to either profits or corruption.

if you could lay this out- meaning how you see this implemented and run and they would interface with the current corporations- with whom they would compete?

It sounds like a giant tmp agency. I am curious however, just need to learn more.

Is there a model for this or is this your idea? I mean a link, a text, a philosophy?

good topic-fresh and new idea for me.

[sandnsea]

23. Not my idea

It's the OP idea and I just got to thinking about it is all. I hate temp agencies and I know they've been used to screw people over miserably. I also know people are getting screwed over anyway, and unions aren't helping and I personally have absolutely no faith in the SEIU break-away either. The idea of an employee corporation that has just as much clout as Target or Walmart, well that's just an idea that seems worth exploring. They'd compete with other employee corporations, just like Yahoo and Google.

[unblock]

18. this is essentially what outsourcing is

and most employers do it to save money and headaches by pushing h.r. issues onto an intermediary company.

the "union" aspect only works if the labor provider has enough leverage to actually bargain collectively.

[pnorman]

19. That would be carrying the concept of "Business Unionism"

to a ridiculous extreme. It would also be a gigantic stride BACK for Unionism.

>
>
There were, furthermore, important legislative accomplishments. Congress, at the urging of the AFL, created a separate U.S. Department of Labor with a legislative mandate to protect and extend the rights of wage earners. A Children's Bureau, with a major concern to protect the victims of job exploitation, was created. The LaFollette Seaman's Act required urgently needed improvements in the working conditions on ships of the U.S. merchant marine. Of crucial importance, the Clayton Act of 1914 made explicit the legal concept that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce" and hence not subject to the kind of Sherman Act provisions which had been the issue in the Danbury Hatters case. The act gave a legal basis in the federal jurisdiction to strikes and boycotts and peaceful picketing, and dramatically limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes. Little wonder that AFL President Gompers hailed the Clayton Act as a "magna carta," probably not foreseeing that future court decisions and interpretations would seriously undermine the power of the language of the law.
>
>
http://www.utu.org/worksite/history/LaborHistory.htm
That Clayton Act was largely ineffectual, and unions were subject to crippling injunctions until 1932. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of that year, effectively shielded labor unions from charges of being "in restraint of trade" under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The key concept, that was fought for with much struggle, was this: "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". Rolling that back in behalf of a questionable advantage, and for a chosen few, would be a BETRAYAL of all the many men and women who fought with all they had, for JUSTICE for ALL. In many cases, all they had of value was their lives. Many gave that too.

(Fucking SCISSORBILLS!!)

pnorman

[sandnsea]

22. Things have changed

I understand your point, but labor isn't valued at all anymore. We need to remember the concept that labor IS a commodity that people sell, and that it has value. It has the same amount of value as the money people use to make profits. I don't think the idea that people deserve to live decently, just cuz it's right, is going to be embraced again, not very quickly anyway. The value of labor, of work, that's what has really gotten lost in the last 20 years.

[bluedawg12]

24. The value of labor is market driven

it is worth only as much money as people are willing to work for.

The unfairness currently is that American workers are not competing with each other for better wages- they are competing with cheap labor in population dense nations like China and India where the cost of labor for multinationals is cheap and benefits like workers compensation, or health insurance or pension are not part of the payment/benefits.

In order to compete with WalMart the union/corp would still either have to make or sell something or simply be an employee broker. Back to profits, power and corruption concerns.

[sandnsea]

25. Market is more than cost

Value is derived by a whole host of things, including society's view of the value of something. If society decides the value of labor is derived from more than pure output, then that will dictate pay as well. When people view their own labor as worth no more than that of a peasant in China, then they can't expect to be paid for it. That's where the anti-union drive has done the most harm and the unions haven't been able to alter the stereotypes. A corporation would have to alter that view, or they wouldn't make any money. Since the US is capitalist oriented, at least for now, I think the corporate model would succeed in raising the value of workers faster than unions ever will. And again, I am very pro-union. I just think there are possibilities with an employee corporation and it's worth looking at. Maybe union workers can make it an employee owned corporation, that would be even more interesting.