If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.
If this were to happen to software etc, it will just destroy innovation here and the other freer parts of the world will take the work.
But this isn't a forgone conclusion, for example worker relations seem to work fine in general in Germany which has actually institutionalized worker representation at a fairly high level in corporations.
The local manifestations of those industries were destroyed by globalization (which unions fought tooth and nail), not unions.
Those industries simply weren't where America's comparative advantage was in a globalized marketplace.
> The classic example is the unions not allowing the Toyota Lean Production system in,
The UAW did, in fact, let TPS in—not some loose copy, but the actual thing itself—at NUMMI.
GM had trouble copying the parts some of its leadership wanted of TPS for its own internal use, but those included massive resistance from their own internal managers as well as labor. And it probably wouldn't have worked for GM because of path dependence; TPS is a system relying on a substantial degree of mutual trust between labor and management, but while a new relationship can start with a clean slate, a strong established history is hard to erase.
Not saying those things you describe didn't happen.
However, one should wonder why almost the entire rest of the world manages to do this just fine.
Edit: and the countries he’s talking about didn’t take manufacturing by being more innovative, they did it through cheap brutal labor practices and environmental destruction of their ecosystems.
The question to ask is: who is the customer of the Union in the US? There is a conflict of interest between the Union in the US and the customers of the products created by unionized companies. In Japan, the focus is on the customer and creating the best product. In the US, the focus is on being in the Union hierarchy, "saving jobs", getting money for the Union, etc. It has nothing to do with making great cars.
The construction Union in New York destroyed new modular appraoches to building in the late 60's (I worked for the architect who tried to bring that innovation in). Even today, if you want to bring modules not build in NYC in to town, it won't happen. There is a conflict of interest between the union and the construction companies' customers.
This is quite apparent in California where the Teacher's union is in a conflict of interest with the students being taught, which is why the Union has destroyed the product of public education consistently for decades.
1950 = 1000 thousand tonnes, 2018 = 4000 thousand tonnes
But even if I did agree that worker rights and wellbeing decrease innovation, then it sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff.
And what destroyed the textile mills of North and South Carolina, which were barely organized at all? They were and still are the states with the lowest unionization rates in the country.
The difference is Michigan union activists like Larry Page's grandfather sent his son to college, and then his son writes a search engine while doing his doctorate.
Meanwhile, the profits of Carolina textile mills went elsewhere, and the people in those towns are worse off than ever.