AFL-CIO ; The debate on the future of Labour Unions

Since the advancment of capitalism in the western world, a parallel power structure where worker and his or her rights can be heard emerged. Since the early days of industrialisation, the empowerment of workers was seen as a primary factor for the better meant of human society. The furstrations of Maxistism can be felt in the low-lit, industries of cloth, steel, coal etc. It is the difference in how modern society would best benefit the working populations of lower classes. Socialism and Communisim project an worker-owned company, with shakeholder rights the most important factor in the management of the company.

Capitalism, in the era of industries and later, depended on managerial capacities to direct the company to best suit the human populations. However, due to increasing layers of management, the modern companies are run by shareholders themselves. It is the wall streets of the nations that decitate the future of capitalism. And wall street never like Unions. For them, having a stake in the company meant low costs and high revenues. High profits could them to be distributed to all the members of the shareholder community. Thus, the idea of Bush of creating an investor generation. As the dream of the next american socity, each house has investments in the market, thus directly benefiting from higher profits.

And by the way, higher profits can be achived where costs are low. Outsourcing makes low costs with increased quality and efficiency possible. Unions are losing their primary motive to operate. The populations they are committed to serve no lower need them. Outsourcing and high business blend of mind are not the only reasons for the loss of union people.

In a book i am reading called, "Our Modern Times: The New Nature of Capitalism in the Information Age" by Daniel Cohen, the author distinguishes three kinds of human capital: "General" "specific" and "Biographical".

"General" human capital is that which bears on the mastery of a competence that is exterior to the firm and "general" to a certain type of knowledge. This is typically the competence of "professionals" who have left the wage-earning pool for higher ground and whose remuneration (including stock options) has much in common with financial capital remunerations. This is also the competence of CEOs who go from managing one company to managing another, and of the new technological pioneers.

"Specific" human capital is that which comes to bear on "internal" knowledge in the company- knowledge accumulated by a worker through apprenticeship in a certain type of work. Often an individual loses such knowledge when he or she walks out the gate of the company. This capital is the direct heir of managerial capitalism in that it depends on a long-term relationship with the company and is rooted in the heart of shareholder economics.

"Biographical" human capital is in some ways the capital of those who have no other type of capital, even if it is the also at times the true heritage of certain individuals in "upper management" whose sole capital is "knowing human relationships." Most often this is the capital of who can be called the " new proletariat": those who have only their lives to use as "experience." This is nonetheless "capital" in the sense that we have confidence in an individual because he or she is thought to react in an appropriate manner in various unforeseen circumstances. Such capital can become more valuable with time, or it can be lost when a worker is unemployed for a long time.

The General Knowledge worker, the Professionals of our world, are the best placed in the society. These people are educated formally, have a wide range of skills that can be used in various companies and are least likely to remain jobless for long periods of time. The educated, and in our generation worker, makes his or her own career path; jumping jobs and industries whenever required or they wish to do so. The Ultra-mobile, Yupiee culture generation fall into this catogory.

The "specific" worker flowerished under socialist, paper-filled ara of the mid-1900's where rules and regulations were the order of the day. A person needed to be in the company for long period of time to understand the rules and regulations of the company. Seriorship was worshiped. With the advant of mobile worker, seniority is gone - atleast not regarded in the same way.

The Biograpical worker is a self-starter, the entrupurer, and built a resume by the method of working several jobs, proving his or her each time.

The Unions thrived under the specific worker where as the majority of the workers nowadays are the other types. Also globalization has its role. The question now with the unions are what direction would they go for?