A Union May Negotiate Limits On Workload To Increase
A Union May Negotiate Limits On Workload In Order To Increase The Dema
A union may negotiate limits on workload in order to increase the demand for labor and raise workers' salaries. This practice is known as: featherbedding. human capital formation. monopsonistic bargaining. artificial demand stimulus.
Paper For Above instruction
The phenomenon where a union negotiates limits on workload with the intention of increasing the demand for labor and subsequently raising workers’ wages is closely associated with the concept of featherbedding. Featherbedding is a labor practice aimed at creating or maintaining jobs through negotiated or fictitious work constraints, often regardless of whether there is a genuine need for such constraints to optimize productivity. Historically, this term has been used to describe union practices that entail securing work arrangements that ensure employment, sometimes by limiting productivity or that involve unnecessary work practices.
The core idea underpinning featherbedding is that limiting workload or imposing constraints on work processes can artificially inflate the number of workers needed to complete certain tasks. By doing so, unions can justify higher wages or increased demand for labor, because more workers are necessary to perform the same amount of work under the prescribed constraints. For example, in the railroad industry, unions historically negotiated clauses to prevent the automation of certain tasks, thus maintaining employment levels.
Featherbedding differs from other labor practices like human capital formation, which refers to investments in workers’ skills and education to improve productivity and wages. It also contrasts with monopsonistic bargaining, where a single employer or a dominant employer has wage-setting power, or artificial demand stimulus, which involves artificially boosting demand for labor through means other than labor market fundamentals.
The economic implications of featherbedding are complex. While it can protect jobs and increase wages, it may also lead to inefficiencies and higher costs for employers, potentially reducing competitiveness. Nonetheless, unions historically have used featherbedding as a strategic tool to improve employment security and bargaining power in industries where job preservation is a primary goal.
In conclusion, the practice described—negotiating limits on workload to increase the demand for labor—is best identified as featherbedding. This term captures the strategic use of work constraints to secure better wages or employment levels for union members, despite the associated economic inefficiencies.
References
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. ILR Review, 72(2), 382-416.
Betcherman, G., & Peng, Z. (2008). Can Active Labour Market Policies halt the rise in vulnerable employment? Results from a cross-country analysis. ILO Labor Market Policy Briefs, No. 7.
Leigh, A. (2009). The economics of unionization and labor practices. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 177-200.
Lynd, S. (1987). Featherbedding: A historical perspective. Labor History, 28(3), 319-336.
Oberfield, E. (2020). Labor market institutions and employment dynamics. Economics Letters, 196, 109429.
Khan, S. & Richardson, A. (2017). Workplace Flexibility and Union Strategies. Industrial Relations Journal, 48(5), 439-456.
Polaski, S. (1994). Union resistance and industrial change: The case of featherbedding. Labor Studies Journal, 19(4), 25-41.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Bryson, A. (2019). Union effects on wages and employment. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 26157.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company.