Labor Unions Using the Principles of Karl Marx - Assignment Example

1 Analysis of Labor Unions using the Principles of Karl Marx The year 1763 to 1789 has gone down in history as a revolutionary era. During this period there were several occurrences including the Boston Massacre. This event stemmed from the unhappiness of Boston Rope Makers with the competition they were getting from off duty British soldiers who sought work to supplement their wages. A verbal altercation between a member of each group escalated into a battle which served as a cry for revolution. Thomas Jefferson was opposed to the idea of an industrialized society where people were separated by wealth. The movement which he was a part of sought to encourage America to “remain a rural agricultural society where equality and a mans dignity could be maintained by tying men to the land. He felt that an industrial class system would erode democracy and equality”. His efforts failed and in stepped industrialization. (A Curriculum of US Labor Doc) The stage was set for labor unrest throughout the industrial labor force. The laborer after all his efforts, is given the least of the profits made from the production. At the end of the day he returns to a home where there was never enough. Bills were unpaid and living conditions were less than favorable. Here lay the perfect setting for a revolution of the classes as was theorized by German born economics, sociologist, philosopher and revolutionary, Karl Marx. Labor unions were formed through the uniting of disgruntled workers who realized that if they were to stand alone against employers they would be crushed, but as a united force they would become the small ax that could fell the big tree. This is a true reflection of Marxs theory that the proletariat (industrial workers) would bring about a change in the societal established class segregation. This move was not unique to the United States of America. The early years of the labor movement was no doubt met with a high level of resistance. The Canadian e-Book records that in 1919, two protesting strikers were shot and killed by the police during the Winnipeg General strike. This incident was answered by 428 strikes throughout the country. Not to mention the countless civil unrest and blood shed in the US. Due to the hostility between labor unions and employers and the general volatile nature of negotiations, the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) was passed in 1935 in the USA. This act sought to create a sense of balance in the power relation between organizations and unions. The Wagner Act also cited regulations to govern the formation of union bodies. With the passing of this act, labor union memberships rose drastically in the United States. (Angelo DeNisi and Ricky Griffin 89). There is a saying that money makes the world go round. This is true in its own sense. The rich (bourgeoisie), are able to maintain a stronghold on society because of their ability to influence the economic base of society. It takes money to effect production but at the same time no group can live without the other. Production cannot be realized if there is no labor force. It has been this fact that Labor Unions have used to negotiate their way to achieving at least acceptable working and living conditions for their members. The strength of the union lies in the ability of their members to produce and stay united. Labor unions, when they lead a strike ensure that employers feel it where it hurts the most. In their pockets. They do this by halting production. Without production there would be no means of making a profit and employers also stand to lose from expenditure on raw material not yet converted to usable products. Employers usually stick together trying to protect their interest. It is the same way that the labor unions provides a haven for for disgruntled workers where they seek to hammer out better wage negotiations, more fringe benefits and pension benefits for their members. The huge fall out in production due to massive strikes following the passing of the Wagner Act, caused the government of the USA to effect the passing of the Hartley Act in 1947 followed by the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959. Whereas an advantage in power was given to the unions through the Wagner Act the latter Acts gave both bodies a more even share of power by standardizing union conduct. (DeNisi and Griffin 89) Unionized workers would receive significantly higher wages than non-unionized workers. The Canada e-Book cited that in 2002, unionized employees working full time earned an average of $21.01 an hour and $17.74 an hour part time workers. Non-unionized full time workers earned roughly $17.71 an hour and $10.71 for part timers. The intervention of labor unions have afforded many proletariats (employees) a life that in the past could only be dreamed of. Better wages and benefits. Better pension plans and longer vacations. No longer are certain privileges of life secluded to only the social elites (bourgeoisies). The average man through careful planning can now move from one class of the social ladder to the next. Formerly, following the years of ones productiveness an employee retired almost empty handed. Today labor unions have successfully negotiated for and had suitable pension schemes implemented as a part of an employees benefits. This enables a retiree to still maintain some level of financial independence instead of having to rely on their children and relatives or even government welfare. Every effective labor union has at its helm a competent conciliator who will not bow easily to pressure. Labor unions may even have a union representative from among the workers in a company. This representative would attend meetings and would then keep his colleagues up-to-date on labor issues especially those that may affect them. The proletariats through labor unions have made their voice one. Employers have not been able to ignore their workers as was the case in former years. They have now conformed and human resource management has now become a key factor within major and medium sized cooperations. Organizations are now far more cautious about how they hire and fire an individual. Labor laws have so equipped the working class with a means of receiving redress in the light of unfair or biased treatment by employers. Not just in Europe where Marxs theory had its genesis, but throughout the world the labor force has become more labor conscious and liberated. Some companies have made it their duty to ensure that workers are dealt with fairly. DeNisi and Griffin relates that this is done through the implementation of a more or less formalized grievance system where employees who believe they were wrongfully discharged or punished can appeal such decisions. This system basically forms a part of the labor law contracted in unionized companies. The action of General Motors to close down its Flint factory as was related by DeNisi and Griffin (though their intent was to bring out an entirely different point) as a response to having to pay employee benefits is a perfect example of the bourgeoisie exercising its need to exploit the working class for tis own gains. I agree with Griffin that hourly workers have long been the backbone of the US economy. General Motors was once one of the largest employer in the USA. Unions such as the United Auto Workers afforded the hourly paid workers of this company the comfort of enjoying benefits which made their lives easier. These Unions were able to hammer out deals with General Motors which saw an improvement in working and living conditions of its unionized employees. DeNisi and Griffin cites the case of one such employee, forty two year old Tim Phillbrick. Tim was a unionized plant employee at the Fairfax factory at General Motors. As a unionized worker Tim enjoys benefits such as {overtime pay, a non-deductible health insurance policy which allows him to see a doctor of his choice. Tim is also entitled to four weeks of vacation per year, two weeks at Christmas and at least another week in July when the plant is closed. He is also entitled to two paid twenty-three minute breaks and a a paid thirty minute lunch break per day. This is topped off with the option to retire after thirty years with full benefits (349,350). As a plant employee Tim was not among the highest paid employees in the firm but the added benefits does make life much more favorable for him as a unionized worker. Karl Marx I believe would not be surprised that General Motors tried to opt out of paying these employee benefits in a bid to reel in more profits. General Motors decided to reduce its labor force and to get cheaper labor abroad. Unions such as the UAW staunchly opposed such actions. French sociologist Emil Durkheim would no doubt view all these labor movements as a backward progression as far as social order was concerned. Unlike Marx, Durkheim did not have a problem with the social class system. Social inequality was in his view a natural part of human existence. This is reflected in the statements of Andy Bernard and Terry Burgess, “Durkheim evidently saw social inequality as a necessary and universal feature of society because functionally, more important roles should have higher status and rewards”. (69) Using Durkheims theory one could safely conclude that if we accepted the position to which we were born, that which we inherited, and played our part in society, then there would be no need for labor unions and revolts. Understanding each other and working in unison to maintain the societal structure , is the basic principle upon which stability and social order were built. Social harmony would have been realized and there would be no history of such blood shed and loss of life that came as a result of strike actions and civil unrest. Each man would have been satisfied with his position and earnings and the social lines would not be contested. Society needs a structure to which one can look up to. A structure which is elite and in control of societies affairs. The increase in the population should not cause this structure to become obsolete but rather a division of labor should be put in place to define roles and meet the needs of the population and social order. Marx in counteraction to this view would point to the true emotions of a people towards being stigmatized and labeled according to their inheritance or lack of it thereof. Each man should be given an equal opportunity to excel beyond his inheritance. Capitalism is embedded in the exploitation of the working class. As far as Marx was concerned Durkheims concept of social solidarity would be irrelevant because instead of of being bonded through the division of labor the people would now compete with each other for the more favorable positions.. (Analysis of Roger and Me Concepts of Marx and Durkheim.) The move by General Motors to cut back on employment to cut expenses and seek cheaper labor would be seen by Durkheim as a break in the social contract but to Marx it would be just another move on behalf of another Bourgeoisie to secure surplus while they tried to exploit the Proletariat and pay him as little as possible. While Durkheim would view the entire labor revolution as being a breakdown in social order, Marx would view it has the progressing of a working class to over throw capitalism and thus another revolution in another epoch of the class struggle. Alas Marx would staunchly say with conviction that (to borrow the words of Bernard and Burgess ) ... “the proletariat – stand poised to overthrow the bourgeoisie, and in the process end prehistory and inaugurate classless society or communism (339). DeNisi, Angelo, and Ricky Griffin. Human Resource Management. New York: Mifflin 2001. Barnard, Andy, and Terry Burgess. Sociology Explained. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997. The Canada e-Book. Based on the 2001 Canada Year Book. (11-402-XPE) 06 April 2008. The Canada e-Book. 26 May. 2003 .The People Labor Unions. 7 April 2008. Google Search Engine. A Curriculum of United States Labor History for Teachers. 08 April 2008. Google Search Engine. Analysis of Roger and Me Concepts of Marx and Durkheim. 08 April. 2008. Read More