http://metropolis.co.jp/tokyo/recent/feature.asp

The following comment on this article can be found here:

http://www.japanaddicted.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4803&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

“This piece is nothing but union propaganda and an ADVERTISEMENT in order to get more people to join the union. If you understand how the Tokyo union really functions, you will understand that is exactly what this fluff piece is. When talking specifically about the Nova union, they have not managed to win a single benefit. Further, all significant changes came from OSAKA, not Tokyo. Tokyo just rides on the coat tails of Osaka’s success.

Next, I am going to go out on a self-indulging limb here and say that Carlet and Tench know I am still out there and other people exactly like myself are out there telling teachers that there are other alternatives to dealing with their problems besides joining the union. They are giving desparate teachers the same ‘advice” (ultimatum) they gave me when I had a falling out with them: make your own union. Not all disputes require union action and as a matter of fact, union involvement can (and HAD) hurt employees.

Carlet is LYING about how much he gets paid. His salary was more like 300,000-400,000 yen BEFORE he was made to reduce his hours for kidney dialysis. I know this for a FACT because Tench told me how much the representatives get paid. I remember this because I was interested in becoming a union rep because the pay was good, only I didn’t have the technical Japanese ability to apply.

Here is what I wrote on another forum on this article:

Quite a few redunancies in the article as well as some half-truths.

- Louis Carlet claims that the union won unemployment insurance for
Nova teachers. This is simply not true. Nova teachers already had
access to unemployment insurance without the union’s assistance. The
first teacher to receive unemployment insurance was a non-union
member, Saul. The union followed Saul’s example and decided to push
Nova to make payments for all teachers. What was found out is that
unemployment insurance was part of shakai hoken. The union and Nova
made a deal to only make the unemployment part of the deductions for
teachers, because they knew the teachers didn’t want it. While the
union CANNOT be credited for “winning” unemployment insurance for
teachers, they can be credited with pushing Nova to make the
deductions for all teachers in order to make it easier to file timely
claims.
- While rattling off the rights that teachers do not have as contract
workers, he fails to mention that there is job security provided by
labor standards law for employees who have signed temporary contracts
repeatedly. He fails to mention the illegality on the part of the
company to arbitrarily non-renew long-term workers and that there are
other ways of dealing with this than just joining the union–
especially for individuals. But, I guess he has to advertise.
- He also talks about how collective-bargaining is more difficult
with one person, but he does not mention that in many cases, the
individual is stronger on his or her own when it comes to RIGHTS. I
agree that when we talk about BENEFITS, a good union is needed.
(Watch this be totally bypassed by my “pals” on the board.)
- What is very odd is that there is a direct contrast between the so-
called “wins” of the Nova union and the “wins” of the Berlitz union.
The Nova union only mentions success with rights already guaranteed
to teachers under the law, but the Berlitz union sites examples of
benefits in addition to the law such as larger teacher’s rooms.
- Carlet is more focused on policing companies in terms of rights and
not necessarily benefits.
- Finally, Tench foolishly states that teachers are more interested
in themselves and that’s why they don’t join unions. (Of course I am
paraphrasing). But this is crazy. Unions are formed BECAUSE of self-
interest. Why did Berlitz union members bargain with their company
for a larger teacher’s room? Because they wanted AEON teachers to
use it? No, this was something that their collective SELF-INTEREST
thought was important. The overwhelming reasons for the lack of
interest in the Nova union are: 1) Nobody knows exactly what the
union has done; 2) The union has pushed for things teachers in
general were not interested in and 3) Teachers have seen no real
improvement in their working conditions either with or without the
union’s help (and I speak in terms of benefits, not rights they could
exercise, anyway), so they don’t feel it’s necessary to pay dues to
an organization that won’t get them, for example, National Holidays
off. What is crazy is that I have heard many teachers asking about a
union and when they finally find out what the union has done (or
HASN’T done), they become disinterested. After over ten years of
being in existence and people can count actual successes on one hand,
they are no longer sold on “benefits” the union has to offer.”

Also it was the general feeling that the union was highly legalistic about some of its stands with regard to insurance for example, which can be good, except in negotiations with school administrators where some flexibility is required. I guess it depends on who the mediator is but some were of the opinion that the union sometimes created more problems than it solved.

It just seemed that the costs far outweighed the benefits of a union presence.

Actually it is pretty rare to find someone who has had any first hands experience in working with them from the unions perspective. Thanks for that input.

If your dilemma is drastic, and you’re really at the end of your rope, if your school is being outrageously illegal, then the national union can be a godsend. But if your dilemma is more mild, is composed more of wants than needs, or is centered around school policies that skirt the laws but do not outright break them, then the national union can become a dangerous albatross.

I’ve seen this happen twice close-up. Here’s what happens. There is a lot of discontentment about certain things going wrong in the workplace, but at the core are only a few really ticked-off people. A union is formed. Initially, the larger number of cooler tempers keep the wild ones in check, and negotiations with the management are civil, even if tense and uncomfortable. But most requests are reasonable and offered in good faith, and often times the school will see that compliance is relatively painless, and concessions will be made. A key factor here is what demands are made and what attitude the union takes in asking for them. Ask for reasonable things in a constructive, non-confrontational way (“Here are several things we want which will improve the school and help you as much as they help us”), and success is possible.

What happens then is that most of the teachers will be satisfied and will then lose interest in maintaining union membership. But they leave the union mechanism intact when they leave. They’re the stable ones, and what’s left is the hotheads–who suddenly find that they are a lot less impressive or influential with their now-small numbers. But they have an official union. So they call in the national labor union, which, if it sees a possible platform in the school, agrees to engage.

Suddenly, things change drastically. Remaining members of the union are given pep speeches and told about all the horrible things that are being done to them, and are told of all the things they are entitled to. Some of these things are true (though most have catches in them), some are true but are grossly exaggerated, and some are theoretically possible but pragmatically are no better than pipe dreams. The real exaggeration and even fiction-telling comes in setting up the company as an oppressive criminal.

In dealing with the management, the union immediately goes from being civil to being hostile, sometimes outrageously so. Demands go from being reasonable to being outrageous and exorbitant (under the theory that if you want something, you have to demand much, much more). The school is accused of immoral, unsightly, and often criminal behavior. Threats of all kinds are made, the media is called in. Name-calling abounds. Strikes and demonstrations ensue, often with 90% or more of the protesters brought in from the outside, with only a small core of actual school employees among them. The union may choose to focus on an issue that they want to make progress on, regardless of what is reasonable in relation to that one school.

In short, an atmosphere is created which virtually guarantees that the management will clamp down and not give a single thing that they don’t absolutely have to. And if your school is simply skirting the laws instead of breaking them, then that means they usually won’t have to give up a thing.

Another effect is often seen as retaliatory by the school, but is in fact now made necessary due to union threats. The school goes on the defensive, which means every interaction with any teacher is viewed as a possible union confrontation. The school recognizes that in order to making decisions on how to deal with teachers, they need careful documentation; to the teacher, this means a lot more paperwork, more rules to follow, deadlines set where they were not before, and more observation and micro-managing from the supervisors.

Forget about any more special favors from the school; where before they would have been willing to give you a special leave of absence or an advance on your salary, now they refuse. Not because they are being nasty, but because they now know that any special-need favor will be made into a universal job perk that the union will demand be made available to everyone.

The union will also start to attack the school in more substantive ways. The union will want something they can threaten the school with–in essence, “give in to us or we’ll do this and that to you. We’ll damage your reputation, we’ll try to get your credentials withdrawn, etc. etc. Any weakness or crack will be exploited. And it won’t be just the school–it’ll be non-union teachers. That you were formerly a union member won’t help; this will simply make you into a traitor to them, and if they can embarrass the school by showing up a non-union teacher, or even better a gaijin supervisor, to have something wrong–an incomplete degree, a visa violation, or whatever–they will use that. I’ve seen people get fired, not because of the school, but because of a union attack.

The teachers who had the cooler heads and left the union previously might want to come back and assert control, but they will find that impossible: the union will tell them they’re not welcome unless the union is certain that they are just as hot-headed as the others. The union will now consist of a small core of progressively-more-disgruntled workers, with the large majority of teachers standing helplessly by on the sidelines.

In the end, things will eventually quiet down, and once the last remaining union members leave, the union will dissolve. But what will be left behind is a workplace far less pleasant and amiable than there was before.

So, are unions a bad thing? No. But you have to be careful, because unions are given a very large legal stick; so when you create one, make sure that it is under control. Don’t let the hotheads reign. Don’t let the cooler heads leave the union with the machinery still intact; if the mission is accomplished, disband the union, else the hotheads will abuse it. If it’s not possible to disband, then maintain membership if only to keep the union from doing anything stupid.

And don’t allow for the national union to be called in unless your situation is really desperate.

Another reader also pointed out to me that my statement that the minstry of labor only deals with civil related issues is mistaken. The ministy of labor only deals with criminal related issues, such as if the employer has stolen wages from the worker. This would have criminal penalties,however my understanding is that it is almost impossible to get a prosecutor to pursue charges in most cases.

So if civil disputes are not handled by labor the employee would have no other choice than either trying to negotiate with the employer over the issues, or court.