Globalization could spur organized labor to rethink its premises, objectives, and strategies. But the prospect for that is not clear, according to respondents to this month's column. As Arun Joshi put it, "Now that the world is becoming a global village, it falls to labor's competency and its ability to move up the value chain that will allow it to share the positive gains. If labor tries the old tactic of strikes, management will just outsource the staff from somewhere else…"
Globally organized labor may benefit from improved communication. But the obstacles it faces include differences in objectives of various work groups, a concentration on short-term goals, and a leadership gap. "Unionization will be achieved from increased interaction due to the ease of communication through electronic means, telephony, and the Internet. But unionization would only gain momentum once the labor groups' revolutionaries ensure the establishment of a work ethic and collective thinking rather than just focusing on short-term needs," according to Hujaj Ali Nawaz Khan. Deepak Alse points out that, "The real issue with unions around the world has always been and continues to be a lack of good leadership! . . . The politics of international labor interaction are extremely complex and will require tremendous leadership ability to negotiate win-win deals across countries so that employees of corporations in diverse nations are satisfied." Paul Jackson is doubtful that globally organized labor will be able to achieve the same purposes that have motivated unions on a national basis because "the purpose of most unions is ‘the greater good' and generally not that of individual workers' immediate needs. . . . Without answering individual needs, labor organizations should be in their death throes."
The kind of thinking needed to meet these challenges for organized labor can be found, according to Walter Blass, in Japan. In his words, "I suggest you look at Japanese unions for a model of unions that understand business. The metaphor of ‘we're all in the same lifeboat' is a useful one, both for management . . . and for unions . . . " Tim Pinel is more optimistic. He says "Perhaps the lack of legal and cultural uniformity on a global basis is what will ultimately limit this kind of action, but I suspect that out of this will emerge new kinds of collective actions that will address the contemporary issues of multinational workforces and globalized networks of trade and commerce."
These comments raise several questions: Just what new kinds of collective action might Pinel have in mind? What are the premises and objectives on which these kinds of actions should be based? Can organized labor form the necessary kinds of alliances with business and government that might be necessary to, in Pinel's words, "address the contemporary issues of multinational workforces"? Is the Japanese model a good one? What do you think? 