I have been think a lot about this subject over the weekend, and perhaps whilst my knee jerk reply to Bill's posts was sincere, it was perhaps not all the response which they deserved. I would say initially however that I think that passion, to use Catspaw's epithet is indeed what this is largely about, not dry logical arguments, but a burning desire to help others. Mick has in the interim addressed the issues concerning the continuing need for unionisation with far more skill than I could, so I will limit myself to taking forward the idea of "ambition".

Bill equates a union with a means of control and states that "..for those who have not much ambition or life choices, a union can be useful." and "For those who have some ambition, the union becomes an obstacle."

I have to say that I agree with him. I have gone over in my mind the circumstances and people involved in the wide variety of organisations I have worked for and with over the last thirty odd years, compared notes with colleagues, and read reports of others interested in this field. The one thread which seems to link those who were promoted and those who survived redundancy is that they were ambitious for themselves.

In other words any organisation which seeks to ensure that everyone is treated fairly will be contrary to the aspirations of the "ambitious". Now please don't read more into this than I have said, I am not suggesting that if you are personally ambitious you are no good at your job, but it has long been accepted in management science that people are promoted to their level of incompetence, and if we are discussing a competitive situation for promotion, or a job, then to achieve the best result for the staff and for the company as a whole, the best person should get the job, not the one best at self aggrandisement, and except in a few very large organisations like the UK Civil service, the only counterbalance to the ability of the ambitious to promote themselves over others is the Union.

Bill, you also suggest that "…companies value good, hard working employees and will go to great lengths to keep them…". This is also true in many cases, but working as a consultant I am able to view organisations and their staff with some impartially, and am often honoured with confidences which people would not dare to make directly. Again there is one thread, common now, which has in my observation increased directly with the increase in the "free market" model of staff relations which you espouse; and that is an increasing differential between the perceived worth of a manager by their staff and by other management. Quite simply, the only people who want to work for a manager well thought of by their managers are the personally ambitious who hope to catch a ride on their coat tails. Those managers who are respected by their staff and produce good results for all the stake holders of the organisation may not be dumped, but they do not prosper. The same is true at the shop floor level.

I must finally point out that the idea that a company could not "…stay in business if they simply abuse employees and exploit them." Is all too easily refuted by the simple expedient of looking at companies like Nike.

As I have said before I do not believe that union members or organisers are saints, nor do I expect them to be, but I am certain that without them the world would be a far worse place for us all. So Bill. Please consider widening the scope of your ambition to include the desire to improve the lot of those who can't find a job, and those who lack the ability and yes, the power, to get even a part of what is their fair share of the profit made by the organisations for whom they work.

Pete M