Why Bargain Together Instead of Individually? One Worker Has No Leverage

An employer and an individual worker are formally equal parties to a contract and are not equal in position. The employer can generally replace one worker readily, can wait, and has resources to draw on, while the worker frequently cannot wait, cannot readily find equivalent work, and bears the whole cost of a disagreement personally. That asymmetry means a negotiation between them is not really a negotiation. Acting collectively changes it, because an employer cannot readily replace an entire workforce, cannot wait indefinitely for production to resume, and faces a counterparty that can sustain a dispute through pooled resources. The entire institution follows from restoring a balance that individual bargaining lacks.

The work is broader than the strikes that reach the news:

• •Negotiating pay, hours and conditions collectively
• •Representing individuals in disciplinary and grievance proceedings
• •Enforcing health and safety law in workplaces
• •Providing legal advice and representation for work-related claims
• •Training representatives and members
• •Lobbying on legislation affecting work

Combination among workers was prohibited in England by statutes of 1799 and 1800, and was treated as a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade at common law before and after, which meant that organising to seek higher wages was a crime while employers organising to set them was not. The prohibition was repealed in 1824, restored in modified form in 1825, and the legal position remained precarious for decades, with prosecutions continuing on other grounds, most famously against six Dorset labourers transported in 1834 for administering an oath. Legislation in 1871 and 1875 established the legal standing of the organisations and removed criminal liability for peaceful collective action, which is the foundation of the modern position.

The level at which negotiation happens differs enormously between countries and determines how much it covers. Enterprise bargaining negotiates workplace by workplace, which is the American and increasingly the British arrangement and which produces coverage close to membership. Sector bargaining negotiates for a whole industry, with the result applying to every employer in it whether or not their workers are members, which is standard across much of continental Europe and is why coverage there far exceeds membership. National agreements covering the whole economy operate in a few countries. Extension mechanisms allow a government to apply a sector agreement to non-signatories. Those structural differences explain why two countries with similar membership can have completely different proportions of workers covered by an agreement.

Membership across most developed countries peaked between the 1950s and the 1980s and has fallen substantially since, and the causes are structural as much as political. Employment shifted from large workplaces in manufacturing, mining and transport, where organising is straightforward, to dispersed service work where it is not. Legislation in several countries restricted the circumstances in which action is lawful and required ballots and notice. Public ownership of large industries ended. Work became more individually contracted, with self-employment and short contracts falling outside traditional structures entirely. Membership has held up far better in the public sector everywhere, and Nordic countries retain high density through an arrangement in which unions administer unemployment insurance.

An employer can replace one worker and wait while an individual worker generally cannot, which is the asymmetry collective bargaining addresses. The work includes representation, safety enforcement and legal advice as well as negotiation. Combination was a crime in England until 1824 and the legal position stayed precarious until legislation in 1871 and 1875. Membership has fallen with the shift from large workplaces to dispersed service work.