The 1st of May is a traditional day in many European countries where members and supporters of trade unions demonstrate for better working conditions. I participated with some friends of mine and had a discussion about basic income with one of them. He is a member of a German trade union and skeptical about basic income as many other members (Gewerkschafterdialog Grundeinkommen 2013). His main argument against basic income is that it would further weaken the position of trade unions and thus impair working conditions.
I have to admit I share his position that trade unions are an important support for employees in order to achieve their rights and fair wages. First, it is hardly possible for an individual to know all necessary information for a successful wage negotiation. Information available is mind blowing and time required to process information is rare. Second, it is difficult to keep track with amendments in the law and developments on the labor market for a person who is only confronted with this topic once a year. Third, one person has rarely the same impact in negotiations as a group of people. Fourth, a person might not have required negotiation skills compared to a trade union with professional negotiators who have training in negotiation. The lack of information, time and skills, thus, make trade unions important for employees.
There has been the argument a basic income would not only provide people with necessary recourses for a life in dignity but also with time for education and training (Howard 2005; Pasma 2010; Standing 2002, 2009). It would be easier to gather information or acquire necessary skills. Both would improve the position of an individual in wage negotiation.
This does not mean that the situation would become perfect and trade unions would be redundant. They would be still important for educating and uniting people. Sometimes, however, I experience members of trade unions terrified exactly from this idea of a situation where they are redundant and have to start recovering from redundancy. I experience them like doctors who fear a world without diseases because they would not have to heal anyone any longer.
In my point of view, this is a contradiction. Should it not be the aim of trade unions to create an environment where employees have equal powers compared to employers? Should it not be the goal of trade unions to empower employees so they can choose the support of trade unions but do not have to rely on them?
If the answer is yes, I hardly understand the rejection of basic income by trade unions. Basic income would allow employees to say no. They would be able to refuse working conditions they dislike. They would be closer to be on a par with employers as they are nowadays.
It, therefore, is time for trade unions to learn basic income is a helpful instrument to achieve their aims and to drop the fear of independent and empowered employees.
Resources:
Howard, M. W. (2005) Basic Income, Liberal Neutrality, Socialism and Work. In: Widerquist, K., Lewis, M. A. & Pressman, S. (eds.) The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Gewerkschafterdialog Grundeinkommen (2013) Stimmen. https://www.gewerkschafterdialog-grundeinkommen.de/stimmen Accessed 05/05/2013.
Pasma, C. (2010) Working Through the Work Disincentive. Basic Income Studies 5 (2), 1–20.
Standing, G. (2002) Beyond the New Paternalism. Verso.
Standing, G. (2009) Work after Globalization: Building Occupational Citizenship. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, the UK ;, Northampton, MA.
Well, in my opinion many of the trade unionists are only behaving like any other activist of a conventional party would. They are defending the ideias of their unions and too many times also the interests of their leaders, even if they don’t realise it. And even when that implies the discard of a good idea. That happens because although trade unions were founded to defend the workers rights and they really keep doing it in a more or less degree, they are in fact political parties. And like most of the other politians, many unionist leaders are actually too attached to power and afraid of losing they’re power and influence over others. If they believe that basic income will reduce the power of unions they not only won’t accept it, but also fight it off… And it’s really too unfortunate, because i think that unions could have an important role and an enormous power to disclose the idea of a basic income to the people. Of course this only my point of view from here in Portugal and who knows maybe things will change…
A good summary of the case for being in a union and an important question.
Is there a comprehensive study on trade union attitudes towards BIG in, say, Europe? What about the views of the unions in countries where a partial BIG already exists? I am not aware of any union rejection of the Bolsa Familia in Brazil or of the Alaska fund dividend. I know that local political parties close to the unions do support those two schemes.
Have the existing partial schemes weakened unions or are they perceived to have done so? In Brazil the unions have arguably gained gained influence over the past decade and Alaska is the second most unionised US state, after New York and before Hawaii in third place.
How have unions responded to existing action to introduce a BIG? My impression is that in Switzerland union leaders have publicly expressed sympathy with the current initiative campaign, but are not actively supporting it. Their focus is on the introduction of a national minimum wage.
In India, the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), an affiliate of the International Trade Union Confederation, is involved in the BIG pilot projects.