The US auto industry was extremely successful before the UAW took over. It's not a coincidence that all three of the Big Three auto makers got taken over by the UAW in the 1950s and 60s, and saw decline in the 70s.
For another example, Bombardier in Canada was a successful airplane manufacturer, and the demands of its unions gradually sapped its international competitiveness.
For yet another example, all the passenger rail services in the US went bankrupt after they were forced into collective bargaining with unions.
It's common sense that unions, backed by laws that give them an extra-contractual monopoly over who a company can negotiate with, are not good for industry.
If they were, shareholders would push for their companies to have their workforces unionized. The only reason the notion that unions are good for the economy has any traction is that there are millions of parties with a conflict of interest in this debate, who use their time to push these pro-union-monopoly talking points.
Ooh boy, those are some great examples of what I mean by people blaming unions for corporate (or government) failure.
> For yet another example, all the passenger rail services in the US went bankrupt after they were forced into collective bargaining with unions.
Yeah, no. The railroad industry is famously boom-and-bust cycle, with virtually every major railroad overexpanding during boom years and going bankrupt in any economic downturn, this happening both before and after unionization. Passenger rail itself was killed not by union featherbedding but by competition with the automobile and airplane--and government regulation that prohibited railroads from being able to cull unprofitable routes (as you needed government permission to cut a route, which it was disinclined to give even after the railroads were in poor health.)
> For another example, Bombardier in Canada was a successful airplane manufacturer, and the demands of its unions gradually sapped its international competitiveness.
Bombardier's troubles (to my understanding) largely originated from its attempts to push up into larger aircraft, bringing it competition against the Boeing/Airbus duopoly, who did not look kindly to a new entrant and brought expensive cases against Bombardier, which forced Bombardier into a partnership to survive.
My sibling comment already tackles the US auto industry one, so I won't cover that.
It seems like any time unions take over, the industry declines, but it's always the corporation's or government's fault.
This is just propaganda from the rent-seeking unions, to prevent people from taking their extra-contractual anti-free-market rights away.
>Passenger rail itself was killed not by union featherbedding but by competition with the automobile and airplane--and government regulation that prohibited railroads from being able to cull unprofitable route
The unions bled them dry by piling on ever increasing obligations on them. Maybe some services would have vanished due to the factors you mentioned, but not all of them.
It seems to quire naive to give unions all the credit while failing to America’s declining quality compared to Japan and failure to listen to loud market trends.
GM ignoring Deming’s TQM while Japan wholeheartedly embraced this philosophy should be mentioned.
The rapid increase in oil prices and the big 3 ignoring the data and sticking with the “Americans want big gas guzzling cars” philosophy would also be mentioned.
This last one combined with the oil crisis is how Honda killed Harley Davidson, as well as how Toyota and VW killed the big 3. When the oil crisis hit the 15-mile per gallon american behemoths just became irrelevant.
Containerized shipping and a lack of import taxes also had far more to do with the USA losing its doninance.
We wanted cheaper, smaller, more reliable cars. The big 3 wanted to pretend like it was still 1955.
For another example, Bombardier in Canada was a successful airplane manufacturer, and the demands of its unions gradually sapped its international competitiveness.
For yet another example, all the passenger rail services in the US went bankrupt after they were forced into collective bargaining with unions.
It's common sense that unions, backed by laws that give them an extra-contractual monopoly over who a company can negotiate with, are not good for industry.
If they were, shareholders would push for their companies to have their workforces unionized. The only reason the notion that unions are good for the economy has any traction is that there are millions of parties with a conflict of interest in this debate, who use their time to push these pro-union-monopoly talking points.