In a smaller country unions are more likely be concerned with society as a whole rather than just the Union. In Larger countries like the United States there are more special interest groups and therefore more of a scattered interest.
(b) What are the implications for Japanese enterprise unions (unions that are associated with a single firm such as the Federation of All Toyota Workers’ Union) versus British craft unions (unions that cover an entire craft in a region or nation like plumbers or mechanics) for their attitudes toward their employers? In a single British plant there are dozens of craft unions, but in a Japanese Toyota plant there is only the single Federation of All Toyota Workers' Union. Which type of union is likely to result in better cooperation between labor and management?
The craft unions are more likely to result in better cooperation between labor and management because each craft having their own union are able to focus on the needs, safety and productivity of each type of worker as opposed to the All Toyota Workers Union that can have the same policies for an accountant as a mechanic and that may not work all the time.
(c) Why might all-encompassing labor organizations or governments that say they favor labor’s interests, such as the former Soviet Union, fail to act in the interests of the general public or of labor? Can we say that Olson's argument is inapplicable to totalitarian or non-pluralistic governments that have a monopoly of power? Why does it break down in that he argues that groups will be more concerned with society as a whole as they control a large proportion?
The larger a portion controlled the more of society’s types within the group. Therefore society will be the groups concern.
(a) Unions in smaller countries are generally larger than those of the larger countries. Therefore, the unions will obtain a larger incentive for their members. The larger countries would likely be more concerned with society at large than their members.
(b) Japanese enterprise unions are unions that represent all of the workers in each of the firms in a particular industry. Regarding their attitudes towards employers, they may have a better relationship and would be easier to work with rather than the British craft unions that are more general and larger. The union that is likely to result in better cooperation between labor and management is the enterprise unions, since their relationship is on a one on one perspective. Similar to the unions at Thompson Products.
(c) Encompassing labor organizations of governments that say they favor labor's interests but fail to act in the interests of the general public or of labor because of the disjointed policies of coalition governments. Olson speaks about leaders who take a less parochial view than their parent unions, because the party leaders have a more encompassing constituency. The power of these groups can be defined by the ratio between their power and that of the government.
If a government attempts to act in the interest of the general public, then it can in no way be a totalitarian government, since that type of government will only be focused on the betterment of itself, opposed to members of society. So in short, Olson's argument is inapplicable.
The japes enterprise union verses the British craft union is another story to talk about. The unions are different in their own ways. The British union provides incentives to their workers that satisfy their need and make them work harder towards the facility. But japan being a smaller country has smaller unions and more driven individuals that are determined to sell their products because that is all they have. Japan does not have any natural recourses it has great car manufacturing companies. Enterprise companies have a stronger foundation and equal benefits.
Government now what do I have to say about this group of society. They tend to see the benefit for themselves first, stuff their pockets as much as they can then give a penny or nickel to the community. They are not interested if the workers have running water or even a decent shelter. It has been through out history that workers had to fight again and again to gain the rights that we have at this day and age. Olson argued that government should be more democratic rather than a totalitarian power; this will create society and economy to flourish. Groups will be more concerned with society of course because of their own benefits and government will stay put in its own happy land unless its been rattled by the community.
Smaller countries tend to have a higher incentive when it comes to being concerned about their own society. When the country is smaller a larger portion of the population is being represented. When we look into larger countries and their societies we can come to the conclusion that we cannot achieve an efficient economy through bargaining. Large organized groups that bargain among each other focus on their own personal gains, the cost of this bargaining often falls on smaller or even at times larger un-organized groups.
When we compare Japanese Unions and British Unions one of the biggest differences is the fact that in a Japanese Union, the union is more related to the single company. The Union is not as independent as the British Unions are. In Japan unlike Britain, the Union operates as a work place focused enterprise. In Britain the industrial relationship system is based all around voluntarism. This effects trade unions making them more and more vulnerable which is a result of lower level of membership support. I personally believe that a Japanese enterprise and oriented system will be better for workers, the cooperation between labor groups and upper management is very important in the work world and it is undeniable that this relationship is key to long term labor peace.
A monopoly of power can lead to a number of problems and inefficiencies ranging from self fishiness to problems with consumer behavior. When we look at Olson’s argument that groups will be more concerned with society, in a monopoly that is a invalid argument. His argument mentions that groups will be more concerned with society because when you control such a great portion of the society you want to make sure you as a company are reaping in all the benefits possible. This is a totalitarian view that Olson mentions, a view that makes sure the company reaps in every benefit possible.
(A) The implications of the insight for unions in smaller versus larger countries is that larger countries focus more with societies that have a large amount of members rather than a smaller proportion. Unions are more likely to be concerned with larger countries with large organized groups that will help in gains and cost. However smaller countries concentrate more on the society more than they do the larger segment of the population.
(b) The implications for Japnese enterprise unions versus British craft unions for their attitudes toward their employers are that the enterprise unions are more focused on their employees, by providing them with incentive and social interest, and product which lead to better cooperation between labor and management. When you have enterprise unions it is more important to grow because of the influence it has on society. Also enterprise unions are less likely to lead to strikes which improve the speed of work being produced.
(c) All encompassing labor organizations or governments fail to act in the interests of the general public or of labor due to the fact of the amount of power. When there is complete power over the labor force it causes inefficiencies and neglect of the society. Olson’s argument is inapplicable to totalitarian government. He argues that the government will only focus on the advancement of the government, because the interest would lead to more benefits.
A . A society cannot achieve efficient economy through bargaining among organized groups. Large organised groups will focus on their own gains and the cost will fall on un-organized groups. Smaller countries tend to have a higher incentive and will be more concerned with the society and a larger proportion of the society will be represented.
B. In Japan, Unions are closely related to the single company. They are not as independent as the British Unions are. In Japan, they operate as workplaced-focused enterprise unions. This enterprised-oriented system focus highly on management and labour relationships in a way where industrial disputes do not lead to strike. In Britain, the Industrial Relationship system has traditionally been based on voluntarism. This makes trade unions vulnerable to a lower level of membership support. Craft union refers to those unions that seek to unify workers in a particular industry or trade that they work in by class or skill level. The Japanese enterprised oriented system will result in better cooperation between labor and management.
C. A monopoly of power will lead to inefficiancies, selfish anti consumer behavior. With total power, the society as a whole will be neglected. Olson's argument that groups will be more concerned with the society is inapplicable to totalitarian. His arguement instigates that groups wil be more concerned with society because if they control a great portion of the society it will be in their best interest to make sure that all benefits and participate.
What are the implications of this insight for unions in smaller versus larger countries (Sweden versus the US)? In which kind of country are unions likely to be more concerned with society at large than with their members?
a. Based on this observation, unions in smaller countries are more likely to be concerned with the effects of union-driven policy on society when compared to their large-country union counterparts. In a country like Sweden, where the unionized population is a significantly larger portion of the total workforce, their member stand to gain more—or lose more—from any effects union-driven policy has on the larger society. Because they are a smaller percentage of society, American unions do not stand to lose as much with poor public policy when compared against their own selfish potential gains.
2. What are the implications for Japanese enterprise unions (unions that are associated with a single firm such as the Federation of All Toyota Workers’ Union) versus British craft unions (unions that cover an entire craft in a region or nation like plumbers or mechanics) for their attitudes toward their employers? In a single British plant there are dozens of craft unions, but in a Japanese Toyota plant there is only the single Federation of All Toyota Workers' Union. Which type of union is likely to result in better cooperation between labor and management?
a. In an enterprise union, the negotiations can be much simpler in that there are only two parties to negotiate with. However, this can make things more difficult for the union because different factions can easily become discontent with union leadership (even faster than with management). In the craft unions, there are multiple parties for the employer to negotiate with, and how management deals with one can affect the relationship with the others (this can lead to things like pattern-bargaining, which may not be in the best interest of management).
Because enterprise unions have the potential to shut down an employer’s entire operation (not just certain parts, like in a craft union), there is likely to be better cooperation from management.
3. Why might all-encompassing labor organizations or governments that say they favor labor’s interests, such as the former Soviet Union, fail to act in the interests of of the general public or of labor? Can we say that Olson's argument is inapplicable to totalitarian or nonpluralistic governments that have a monopoly of power? Why does it break down in that he argues that groups will be more concerned with society as a whole as they control a large proportion?
a. At a very basic level, Olson’s arguments rely on the idea that governments—in dealing with unions—have to balance responsibilities to the unions against their responsibility to society as a whole. In a totalitarian or non-pluralistic government this is not the case. The government is solely interested in advancing the interests of the government more than anything else—and does not have to balance those interests against those of any other group. Assuming that is true, it would be fair to say that Olson’s argument does not apply to such governments.
That would also explain why the argument collapses: Such governments do not genuinely represent larger proportions (even if they claim to represent the ideology of a larger segment).
(A) Unions in smaller countries don’t encompass large segments of the population as in larger countries. In larger countries unions are likely to be more concerned with society at large than with their members.
(B) Small groups thrive quickly, but weaken over time or through stability. This can result in better cooperation between labor and management in the Japanese Plant, because there’s only one union as opposed to the dozen craft unions of the British. Decisions happen slowly or can be delayed when you have larger groups. Members of small groups have unequal organizational power for collective action, and this unbalance reduces but does not disappear over time in stable societies.
(C) Encompassing organization have some incentive to make the society in which they operate more prosperous, and an incentive to redistribute income to their members with as little excess burden as possible, and to stop redistribution unless the amount redistributed is substantial in relation to the social cost of the redistribution. Olson also states, organizations will often consider increasing society’s production, as long as the burden does not exceed the expected reward, and are encouraged to bargain with other substantial groups in an effort to increase the productivity of society.
(a) What are the implications of this insight for unions in smaller versus larger countries (Sweden versus the US)? In which kind of country are unions likely to be more concerned with society at large than with their members?
The implications of this insight for unions in smaller versus larger countries is that typically in larger countries labor unions will represent a large amount of people, however it will only be a minute percentage of the labor force of the country. In a small country a labor union would represent a larger portion of the country because of its proportion of organized workers. Small countries that are unionized have a higher incentive to be more concerned with the society as a whole.
(b) What are the implications for Japanese enterprise unions versus British craft unions for their attitudes toward their employers? In a single British plant there are dozens of craft unions, but in a Japanese Toyota plant there is only the single Federation of All Toyota Workers' Union. Which type of union is likely to result in better cooperation between labor and management?
The implications for Japanese enterprise unions versus British craft unions attitudes toward employers depends on the impact it has on the society. A enterprise union will have the be more willing to help their company/ firm/ industry grow and expand, because it has a larger influence on society as a whole. However, in a craft union, there is little incentive to help the employer, this is because the union controls a small percentage of employees and would have a minute influence on profitability of the union’s industry.
(c) Why might all-encompassing labor organizations or governments that say they favor labor’s interests, fail to act in the interests of the general public or of labor? Can we say that Olson's argument is inapplicable to totalitarian or nonpluralistic governments that have a monopoly of power? Why does it break down in that he argues that groups will be more concerned with society as a whole as they control a large proportion?
All-encompassing labor organizations that say they favor labor’s interest but fail to act in the interests of the public or labor might do so because there is complete control over the labor force and the concern for the society as a whole may be lost. In a system where thoughts of complete control over, not only on labor but everything that sums up to the economy, is in place it simple to believe that managing all the details of society is simple, but there are too many unforeseen details that no totalitarian or nonpluralistic government can predict in its single minded vision. Olson argues that groups will be more concerned with society as a whole as they control a large portion because they own so much of the society that they have an important incentive to be active about how productive the society is.
(a) Unions are likely to be more concern about society than their members in countries or situations where the reduction of the value of society's output is one hundred times or more greater than the benefit it achieves for distributional coalitions.
(b) (b) Based on the above statement, the Japanese enterprise unions are likely to be more concern about workers and result in better cooperation between labor and management, since their effect on society's output is greater than the amount won by special interests.
(c) (c) Even when encompassing organizations have a great incentive to reach mutual consents, consensual bargain tends to be a great time consumer in decision making since group optimal provision requires unanimity. Based on such statement Olson argues that distributional coalitions could create ungovernable societies.