3 ms·
Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.
by pytrin 14y ago
Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.
- 001sky 14y agoThe word 'profession' and the data are both leading you astray. In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% (Historically,"professions" were medecine, law, and accountaincy etc...as opposed to the "trades" It was only the trades which had unions. US, we have public sector unions (very large), including teachers, etc. Public sector = "Bureaucrats"!= professions.
- FJim 14y agoWhat does that even mean?
- pytrin 14y agoA profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.
- 001sky 14y agoPart of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.
- pytrin 14y agoI said professions, not professionals.
- 001sky 14y agoHistorically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]
- lutusp 14y ago> Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.
- 001sky 14y agoUp until 1812 or so, I would agree with you. But the landed classes were forced into the professional ranks throughout the 19th C. "To makes ends meet." The Corn laws, ca1830 & ff. Edit: If I may elaborate on this. Also, i did not mean the political sense of "ruling class". I meant, strictly speaking, their status as economic agents. If you are a partner in a partnership, you have legal control rights. Same as if you are a material shareholder in a stock-company. You are not an "at-arms-lenght-employee" in other-words. So, the idea that you would need a union for what were in essence "company directors" just does not make logical sense. Again, that changes when (whatever the expertise) thes folks are forced to work for the state; they are then stripped of their control rights and take on a position more akin to Labour, structurally.
- lutusp 14y agoI must agree that I specified too short a time period before which the "ruling" class simply ruled and weren't strongly connected to professions and investment activities. So thanks for posting.