WI Trade Unions Were Organised More Like Professional Associations?

WI Trade Unions were organised more like Professional Associations?

What I am essentially saying is what if in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than fighting for the right to represent workers on issues of wages and conditions, trade unions instead sought to shore up the position of their members by instead controlling entry into the occupations they represented. Of course early craft unions did pursue such policies but they were overtaken by the form of trade unionism were are more familiar with now.

Whilst the most unskilled jobs might be hard to organise along these lines, most occupations, even low-paid ones involve some form of skill that can be measured and tested for, so I think this ATL is plausible.

The thing which gave me the idea of this is that I was reading about how teachers in the UK would most likely have formed professional associations rather than trade unions if only they have formed a sense of collective identity prior to public education (ie doctors formed their medical associatons long before public healthcare). Once the government was involved, the government did not like the idea of the teachers self-regulating entry into the profession.

How would the economy (and being an Australian I am thinking here of primarily the English-speaking economies, but you can include others as well if you want) be different if all trade unions had become professional associations. Obviously there would be no or few strikes, as supply would be fine-tuned to never exceed demand. This would lessen workplace disruption. On the other hand other inefficiences would creep in. Would the fact that these professional associations (even for blue-collar industrial jobs) wouldn't strike lead to them being viewed more favourable among the middle class than trade unions were in OTL?

Also if this were to occur I think at least in Britain politics would develop rather differently to OTL. These professional associations would have I assume a much different ethos than the trade unions so the British Labour Party would be different or perhaps butterflied away entirely. How would the major political faultlines develop in such a society?
 
You might want to take a look at Germany to gauge some of the effects. Under the German system, many more jobs than in the rest of the world have specific entry-level requirements and there is a system of training that combines further schooling with vocational istruction and ends with an official certificate that says you're a fully qualified plumber/mason/bicycle mechanic/retail salesman/secretary/cleaner/gardener. The downside is that labour market 'churn' is markedly reduced, employment increasingly two-tiered (with those working in their specialties enjoying higher pay than those working outside or having no certificate) and there is a shortage of specialist in many areas. The upside is that you get much more highly qualified people when you get them. Of course, in Germany it was the state under the influence of artisanbal associations that expanded this system into industrial employment rather than the unions pushing it.
 
You might want to take a look at Germany to gauge some of the effects. Under the German system, many more jobs than in the rest of the world have specific entry-level requirements and there is a system of training that combines further schooling with vocational istruction and ends with an official certificate that says you're a fully qualified plumber/mason/bicycle mechanic/retail salesman/secretary/cleaner/gardener. The downside is that labour market 'churn' is markedly reduced, employment increasingly two-tiered (with those working in their specialties enjoying higher pay than those working outside or having no certificate) and there is a shortage of specialist in many areas. The upside is that you get much more highly qualified people when you get them. Of course, in Germany it was the state under the influence of artisanbal associations that expanded this system into industrial employment rather than the unions pushing it.

Yes the German system is an interesting one. I was aware of the fact that there apprenticeship system is very developed, but I was unaware of how expanded it was into many white-collar occupations.

A lot of the criticisms of the German system are what I expect would occur under a system of self-regulation of professional standards. There would be a strong insider/outsider split between those with qualifications and those without. Also I can see more of a 'labour aristocracy' developing with more skilled occupations benefiting at the expense of less-skilled ones.

I suppose the interesting point is whether this would outweigh the likely positive effects of such an ATL. I would suggest that the benefits would include less strikes (if not non-existent) a more 'professional' approach by trade unions (ie I doubt they would fall under the control of militant socialists) and perhaps a stronger work ethic is people developed a view of their jobs being vocations/professions, rather than just jobs.
 
WI Trade Unions were organised more like Professional Associations?

What I am essentially saying is what if in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than fighting for the right to represent workers on issues of wages and conditions, trade unions instead sought to shore up the position of their members by instead controlling entry into the occupations they represented. Of course early craft unions did pursue such policies but they were overtaken by the form of trade unionism were are more familiar with now.

Whilst the most unskilled jobs might be hard to organise along these lines, most occupations, even low-paid ones involve some form of skill that can be measured and tested for, so I think this ATL is plausible.

The thing which gave me the idea of this is that I was reading about how teachers in the UK would most likely have formed professional associations rather than trade unions if only they have formed a sense of collective identity prior to public education (ie doctors formed their medical associatons long before public healthcare). Once the government was involved, the government did not like the idea of the teachers self-regulating entry into the profession.

How would the economy (and being an Australian I am thinking here of primarily the English-speaking economies, but you can include others as well if you want) be different if all trade unions had become professional associations. Obviously there would be no or few strikes, as supply would be fine-tuned to never exceed demand. This would lessen workplace disruption. On the other hand other inefficiences would creep in. Would the fact that these professional associations (even for blue-collar industrial jobs) wouldn't strike lead to them being viewed more favourable among the middle class than trade unions were in OTL?

Also if this were to occur I think at least in Britain politics would develop rather differently to OTL. These professional associations would have I assume a much different ethos than the trade unions so the British Labour Party would be different or perhaps butterflied away entirely. How would the major political faultlines develop in such a society?

If they attempted to control the entry of workers into their trades, then it would strike of restrictive practices, and would not be accepted by the management of the companies, unless they were allowed a say in the management of the company, which would be radically different from OTL.

I suspect that, both nations having strong Labour/Labor movements that it would be similar in both Australia and Britain. I'm not sure of America though.

A Facsist state would be the easiest way of pushing it forward, with the abolition of democracy as we know it and Parliament made up of representitives of the various trades instead of elected members. That way they could ensure this. What you ask is basically one of the planks of the British Union of Facsists in the 1930s.

Whether it would be a good idea is another matter. Apoogies if I misunderstood.
 
This is essentially a non starter. Whilst many of the earlier unions were craft unions and sought to restrict entry and supported a sliding scale in wages this option was not really on the cards for general unions and industrialisation effectively meant that most employers had large workforces

Collective bargaining although intially resisted by most employers was effective in raising living standards at sustainable rate. When they were suppressed by the combination acts they emerged in a different form as the luddites. Trade unions if anything probably prevented revolution by offering a means of improving working conditions and they are arguably conservative institutions in that the last thing they want is a state controlled economy where the right to withdraw labour is regulated. So effectively the alternative is revolution
 
If they attempted to control the entry of workers into their trades, then it would strike of restrictive practices, and would not be accepted by the management of the companies, unless they were allowed a say in the management of the company, which would be radically different from OTL.

I suspect that, both nations having strong Labour/Labor movements that it would be similar in both Australia and Britain. I'm not sure of America though.

A Facsist state would be the easiest way of pushing it forward, with the abolition of democracy as we know it and Parliament made up of representitives of the various trades instead of elected members. That way they could ensure this. What you ask is basically one of the planks of the British Union of Facsists in the 1930s.

Whether it would be a good idea is another matter. Apoogies if I misunderstood.

I agree with some of the points you made, however in regard to the restrictive practices points it could be argued that OTL law societies and medical associations could be regarded as such. Of course these occupations handle either confidential or life-threatening matters, so certifcation of skill is very important. However there are many other occupations were you could make the same argument too. Many people will argue that law societies and medical associations are really trade unions in all but name.

Also in regards to your point about managment, I never meant that these associations would directly say would could be employed in individual enterprises. What I meant was that after some form of training period individuals would probably have to take some sort of test or other assessment and if successful would be given official certification (like the bar or medical register). The professional associations would probably have some form of quota based on estimates of keeping supply and demand in balance (although self-interest coming into play, they will likely keep supply always slightly below demand). Management of enterprises would then be able to choose any employee they want, as long as they are on the relevant list of certified/qualified people.

Of course management will not be exactly enamoured of this (like their attitude to unions in OTL), but I can see these associations being more accepted than trade unions by the broader middle-class. This will be especially because they will likely not follow any radical socialist ideology (so in this respect will be like OTL craft unions). Also the negative effects of the more rigid occupational structure will be less obvious than the disruption of strikes.

Yes it is likely that something like this could have occurred under a facist state, however I would prefer to use the term corporatism, which is more purely economic rather than social and political.

Corporatism can be quite compatible to democracy (unlike facism). Just look at most of post-war Western Europe for examples of mild corporatism in democracies. The only difference to more laissez-faire economies is that most decisions are made after tripartite negotiatons between business, trade unions and government. I see nothing particuarly undemocratic in that.
 
This is essentially a non starter. Whilst many of the earlier unions were craft unions and sought to restrict entry and supported a sliding scale in wages this option was not really on the cards for general unions and industrialisation effectively meant that most employers had large workforces

Collective bargaining although intially resisted by most employers was effective in raising living standards at sustainable rate. When they were suppressed by the combination acts they emerged in a different form as the luddites. Trade unions if anything probably prevented revolution by offering a means of improving working conditions and they are arguably conservative institutions in that the last thing they want is a state controlled economy where the right to withdraw labour is regulated. So effectively the alternative is revolution

Yes it is true that there would some occupations where it would be very hard to have professional associations, but I believe that there are a lot where it would be plausible. For instance the example of gave of school teachers, would be easy. Also most occupations involving some form of skill would be able to organised as such. For instance in the 19th century at least, clerical work would be easy to have professional associations for, considering that at the time it was a very small part of the economy and considered somewhat 'elite'.

Also in regards to it being impractical in large workforces, remember as I said in a previous post employers would still be allowed to individually choose their workers as long as they were on some form or list provided by the associations.

In this ATL collective bargaining will be less necessary as there would always be a balance or slight shortage of most occupations, tilting the balance of negotiations more in favour of the employee.
 
Yes it is true that there would some occupations where it would be very hard to have professional associations, but I believe that there are a lot where it would be plausible. For instance the example of gave of school teachers, would be easy. Also most occupations involving some form of skill would be able to organised as such. For instance in the 19th century at least, clerical work would be easy to have professional associations for, considering that at the time it was a very small part of the economy and considered somewhat 'elite'.

Also in regards to it being impractical in large workforces, remember as I said in a previous post employers would still be allowed to individually choose their workers as long as they were on some form or list provided by the associations.

In this ATL collective bargaining will be less necessary as there would always be a balance or slight shortage of most occupations, tilting the balance of negotiations more in favour of the employee.

There is a thin dividing line between some professional associations and trade unions. The BMA is effectively a trade unionexercising bargaining power. There are areas other than collective bargaining such as political lobbying and campaigning and more importantly legal support that unions provide but not all professional associations do. This legal support is important in the medical profession and teaching where individuals could be on the recieving end of litigation and also in compensation claims against employers and defence at disciplinary hearings

Cleraks would probably have no professional association. The National Union of Teachers was effectively a semi professional association until it realised that opposition to strike action was getting it nowhere one of the reasons for the breakaway NAS which was more like a union. Now the NUT is in the TUC and the more moderate ATL has embarked on strike action.

The local government officers union Nalgo took a long time to agree to strikes and TUC membership.

Clive Jenkins used to advertise ASTMS with a poster "His biggest mistake was to pick up a pen instead of a shovel". By the sixties and seventies the white collar worker was getting more militant so unionisation would probably have emerged anyway at a later stage
 
Top