Economics: 'The need for trade unions is greater than ever,' Paul Sweeney of the Irish Congress of Trade Union said this week. I believe he is right. Aspects of the Irish Ferries dispute revealed an unacceptable face of capitalism that needs a counterbalance. But this week has shown there is also an unacceptable face of trade unionism.
A decision by the Civil Service Arbitration Board means approximately 130,000 learner-drivers will face further ¨frustrating delays" in doing their driving test. This is thanks to the opposition of public sector unions Impact and the CPSU to attempts by the Government to bypass a growing backlog of tests. The Government's proposal was to outsource - on a temporary basis - 40,000 tests with which existing testers were unable to cope. But unions argued that this was not permissible with the partnership agreement and went to arbitration.
In the short run, this is a victory for trade unionism. In the long run, it is a PR disaster. Most of those waiting to do their driving test belong to what is known as Generation X. They are the 20- or 30-somethings who will eventually dominate the economy and the political system.
Generation X has very different values from its parents' generation. Its members despise outmoded hierarchies, bureaucracy and conservatism. They embrace dynamism, change and meritocracy. They are not ideological about, nor necessarily hostile to the idea of a strong public sector.
But they are hostile to anything stopping them from living their lives. By alienating Generation X in this way, the public-sector union Impact is driving another nail in the coffin of support for unions among young people - support that was once strong.
It's not as if the trade union movement doesn't have other problems with which to deal. Trade union membership is becoming weaker in those sectors that are growing, including services, high-tech manufacturing and construction. The trend implies a continuing fall in the share of workers belonging to trade unions. At about one-third, that share is already low.
The historical rationale for unions stems from the monopsony power of many employers. Like its close cousin, monopoly, monopsony involves one side of a bargain having much more power than the other.
But it is the customer, ie the employer, rather than the supplier that has the power. By joining unions, workers countered the monopsony power of employers with the monopoly power of employees and secured a greater share of profits and better conditions. But Impact and the CPSU have now shown how the balance of power can go to the other extreme.
Many of the factors that uphold employer's monopsony are disappearing. For a start, full employment has given workers more choice of employer. Greater access to full-time education and better enforcement of anti-ageism legislation smooths the transition between different sectors. Class distinctions and unequal access to education - that once put high walls around workers' horizons and mobility - are in slow decline. An emerging culture of job-switching is making workers more agile.
In short, for workers who are skilled and adaptable, the monopsony problem is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. For unskilled workers, however, the picture is grim. Technological change is rewarding workers who reskill and adapt, but it severely punishes unskilled workers, as well as workers who resist change. At the same time, globalisation is weakening the power of unions to defend the unskilled. So, although its present existence has been exaggerated, the emergence of a "race to the bottom" in future years cannot be ruled out if unemployment rises.
Trade unionism must go back to basics. It could do worse than to take inspiration from Karl Marx. As well as condemning its economic exploitation, Marx berated capitalism for alienating workers from control over their work, for putting them in soulless and hierarchical structures in which their individuality was crushed. Significant trade union leaders - David Begg and Paul Sweeney of Ictu - have come close to recognising how this concern can be turned into a new strategy for trade unions. As life-long employment becomes less common, they urge the Government to protect the employment of workers, rather than specific jobs, and to do it by enhancing worker access to retraining and mobility. This is a revolutionary insight: it is the worker and his or her employment prospects that matters, not the job itself.
The trade union movement could use this insight by recruiting members before they even enter the workforce. The idea would be to offer members a life-long service of career guidance and support through whatever job they take up, rather than just supporting them on the shop floor of one particular factory.
The muscle of collective bargaining power - a crude instrument - could be complemented by focusing on the development of members' job skills, negotiating better contracts and helping them to navigate the world of office politics.
Unions could also work in tandem with the relevant educational authorities to develop acceptable standards for work-related training. What is perhaps most interesting is that in doing this, unions would be providing a market service for which members would gladly pay: a professional navigation system through the labour market. Instead unions are trying to determine the question of who should provide social services. The stance of Impact and the CPSU on the outsourcing of driving tests is a case in point. Unions should not be concerned whether such services are provided by the private or the public sector because that is a decision that only a democratically elected government can decide. The concern of unions should be, simply, to protect workers' rights and do so by focusing on particular industries.
However, trade structures are cutting across very different types of workers and creating dysfunctional, one-size-fits-all approaches to wage bargaining. And the union movement's love affair with public service bureaucracy is putting it increasingly out of step with a new, dynamic society.
The industrial revolution robbed workers of control of their destiny. But a revolution in the labour market, coupled with a revolution in technology, could give it back to them. Instead of deriding capitalism, unions should harness its power for their members. Professional competence, not political power, should be the strongest defence of the worker.
