I have already written about power this morning and I note that on quite a different tack that so has Aditya Chakrabortty, in the Guardian.
Aditya's concern is with negotiating power on pay. His argument relies on a simple fact, which is that hotel cleaners in New York are paid three times as much as cleaners working for the same chains in London.
The difference comes down to power, or in this case the power of being unionised to achieve collective bargaining, or not.
The absence of unionised collective bargaining in far too many UK sectors is a market failure because markets are only efficient when the participants play on a level playing field. It has always been the job of unions to create that level of playing field which is otherwise absent.
A government that believed in effective markets would encourage effective trade unions. We haven't seen governments do that for many years. The conclusion is obvious: too many in UK politics have for far too long abandoned effective markets in favour of explotation and rent seeking.
That's another thing the Scots have noticed. Short term promises are not going to fix that, north or south of the border, but reform on this issue is vital if current inequality that is at the heart of our economic malaise is to be fixed. And I work with unions for that precisely that reason.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This, of course , is an implicit and justly savage indictment of the Labour party for deserting the very people it should be supporting and tolerating the ‘crap jobs’ culture which has now become normative.
I think that one reason that many are turning to the YES vote in Scotland is because they understandably feel that the Labour party is ‘Tory Lite’ (and not so lite, either!) and for years have not been able to rely on them to offer the sort of support they legitimately expect. Brown and Darling seem oblivious to this which is yet further evidence of the dense ‘cloud-cuckoo-land’ of Westminster. If the Scots vote yes and Labour is minus 46 MP’s in England -then justice has been meted out to them.
I find that difficult to swallow – in 2010 believe it or not there was a swing to Labour in Scotland; More over it was under Tony Blair I believe that Scotland and Wales had devolution. The last government certainly helped the regions in capital/infrastructure spending.
Furthermore it does not follow that the Scots will do better under the Nationalists. A run on the UK pound, a run on Scottish Banks, a run on Shares especially hitting pension pots and so on to say nothing of the warnings issued from Scottish business and the future of oil revenues as well as the possible effects on international investment ‘into’ a separate Scotland. It’s all high risk on the Scots and its all high volatility ( starting this week).
“It’s all high risk on the Scots and its all high volatility”
Really? Not sure this is true of the Scots. As Mel Wallace said, “They cannae take our freedom!”
The risk lies with the right. If the vote is yes, then we will see a proper comparison between socialism and neo-libralism. No wonder Westminster is in such a panic. (This does of course depend on the correct implementation of the correct socialist structures, and assuming the absence of exceptional outside circumstances. Before the odious Worst-of-All brings up the Soviet Union again).
Richard, I know I shocked many of my Labour Party “comrades” (deliberately used – I’m quite at ease with the use of the word, but know its often used to denote the various hues of Militant/SWP/Trotskyites etc.) when I said that the “free market” is actually a Socialist concept, which the Left had foolishly permitted the Right to capture.
This is because a true “free market” is one in which there is “equality of bargaining power”, so that it should more properly be called a “fair market”; and to achieve that, Government must intervene to remedy market failures.
Properly functioning Trades Unions are essential to the creation of a “fair market”, whic, of course, is why the Right have always sought to neutralize, even neuter!!, their power, for the LAST thing the Right want is a FAIR market, aiming rather for a totally stitched up, rent-producing market, in which the consumer has a simple choice “Take it, or leave it”.
Anyone who thinks we have real “choice” over essentials such as water, utilities, transport, even education – and soon, alas, even health – has not been watching or listening, with bus deregulation a classic instance: except for a few outliers, 4 or 5 big companies now run all “local” bus services from Lands End to John O’Groats, resulting in expensive fares and unresponsive service. In Norwich where I live, it’s far cheaper for a family of Mum, Dad and a couple of children, to hire a taxi than travel by bus – and more convenient too, of course.
Trade Union muscle to produce “a pay rise for Britain”, as UNITE the Union – my Union – argues, is essential, not just for the low-paid, but for the whole economy, since more wealth and spending power would thereby be injected into both the local, and national, economies, to the benefit of all.
So I wholeheartedly endorse your observation that:
“The absence of unionised collective bargaining in far too many UK sectors is a market failure because markets are only efficient when the participants play on a level playing field. It has always been the job of unions to create that level of playing field which is otherwise absent.”
Andrew
Many thanks
And I trust you’re well
Richard