Of strikes, trade unions and economic reality

By XN IRAKI

Teachers, urged on by their trade Union, Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), went on strike to force the Government to employ more teachers. That was a rare cause of strike.

Suppose doctors and other professions did the same to force the Government to employ more of their own?

The fact that the Government caved in shows the power of trade unions.

The strike also showed the class fissures that characterise our society.

Children in private schools lost no time but will seat for the same exams with their public schools counterparts, then face quotas.

Better salaries

Economists have debated the economic merits and demerits of trade unions. On the social front, they ensure that employers do not exploit workers.

After all, trade unions arose from such exploitation during the industrial revolution.

By hording together in large numbers, hapless employees can fight for their welfare from better salaries to better working conditions like paid leave and shorter working hours.

Labour is one of the most expensive factors of production and withholding it can bring down any enterprise.

However, by squeezing entrepreneurs to their last drop of blood, everyone can be a loser.

No one wants to run a loss-making business.

This is perhaps the reason unions are more prominent in the public sector where profits are not a major motive.

Unions, however, have a negative impact, too. By bargaining for salaries without commensurate rise in productivity, they could be a drain to the economy.

Why should I work hard in my profession if I can wait for the union leaders to bargain for better pay? After all rising sea will raise all the boats.

Why are unions apparently so strong in Kenya while they have waned in other parts of the world?

Unions rhyme very well with our traditional way of life, harambee sort of. We did most of things together.

Some could argue that we love unions because of the protection they offer against our incompetences. Others opine that politics could be behind the longevity of unions.

They serve as good spring board to high political offices.

Unions have money and influence. In South Africa for example, ANC would be less successful without COSATU.

The British Labour Party derived its power from unions. Kenya’s leading political parties would not want to annoy KNUT or Central Organisation of Trade Unions.

US democrat party has strong labour support. The perks and the powers union leaders enjoy could also be an incentive to their longevity.

In other countries, unions have recorded dwindling numbers. It is all economics.

Heavily unionised regions have seen a decline in investments.

The argument is simple; unions often inflate wages and erode investor’s profits.

The decline of manufacturing and rise of knowledge workers may be another factor behind the decline.

In the UK, Margaret Thatcher confronted unions head-on.

They have never fully recovered.

In Kenya, unions are nurtured by high unemployment rates.

The employed are willing to pay a monthly subscription for "job security".

In vibrant economies, there is no need for such protection, if you lost one job, you get another one.

Where do we go from here?

The argument advanced by KNUT that the Government ought to create jobs for teachers is popular with parents too.

This argument, though politically persuasive, is economically weak.

There is no doubt that we need more teachers to teach the rising population of children.

But education is a unique industry in that the main commodity, the students cannot be sold.

The "free education" is paid for by someone. But surprisingly, not by the consumers. It can be argued that we pay taxes.

But majority of parents do not pay any taxes because they probably work in informal sectors, out of reach of the taxman.

What is clear is that we have never digested the nitty gritties of the market systems.

We need to supplement the government efforts in creating jobs.