The weakening of trade unions

The adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link can be used to explain the current overall performance of trade unions. This is on the premise that the group dynamic is imperative to the work of trade unions and their success. As a consequence, there is merit in the view that the success of the entire group depends on the success of each individual member of that group.

 

It is known and accepted that the strength of trade unions lies in their ability to advocate for workers’ rights through engaging in collective bargaining and action, balancing power dynamics in the workplace and promoting social justice. Trade union density is seen as the way towards achieving this. Its importance is embodied in the fact that it represents a power base, which in turn allows it to wield influence. This places the trade union in a position of strength to advocate for workers’ rights and to exercise the workers’ bargaining power.

 

The decline in trade union membership constitutes a weakening of the power base, which by extension has the potential to diminish the effectiveness of unions. This cannot be in the best interest of trade unions since it weakens their ability to hold employers and government accountable. Employers are able to escape from keeping their side of the collective bargaining agreement and in addressing workplace issues that affect the employer-employee relationship.

 

The status of trade unions is further affected by the tendency of a sizeable percentage of the workforce to sit on the fence as free riders. These workers opt not to join a trade union. They hold the view that they will benefit from whatever outcomes may be derived from negotiations completed on behalf of the trade union membership. In order to address this problem, the introduction of the agency shop legislation seems the best option. This would make it mandatory for all employees in a workplace, whether union members or not, to pay a fee to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining, even if they choose not to join the union.

 

Whilst this appears to be a worthwhile solution, it raises the question of whether this runs contrary to the individual’s right of freedom of choice and association. While this may be debatable, it is reasonable to argue that it is only fair that an employee who benefits directly and indirectly from the bargaining and agitation of trade unions should be required to contribute to the work being done on their own behalf.

 

It would appear that trade unions are losing ground because of their failure to organise workers at the workplace. There are some assumptions made that the image presented by trade unions is not good. There is growing concern over the low level of participation by members in the activities of their respective trade union. There is serious cause for concern where less than five percent of the union membership participates in the internal electoral process. This clearly suggests that there is a pervasively high level of disinterest.

 

Besides the internal issues, the new workplace arrangements, which include the offer of contract employment, and the emergence of the informal sector, make the organising of workers more problematic. This is so because persons in the informal sector are not formally registered or regulated by the government. The sector is characterised by having unregistered businesses, low wages, limited job security, and a lack of legal protection for workers.

 

As it stands, the argument can be made that organised labour may have become the victim of threats imposed by the political elements, whereby some trade union leaders readily reach out to grab the dangling carrot. This can be a demotivator and a disincentive to those free riders or nonmembers to join the union. Moreover, the loss of confidence and trust on the part of union members in the leadership certainly contributes to the weakening of individual trade unions.