organised labour in the context of employee ownership

["Lisa Fowkes & Ian Hoskins" <ianandlisa@bigpond.com>]

Following from Joseph & Brian's discussion:
I think one of the key roles of unions is to promote workers interests (not
just rights) across employers and industries.  

The Australian trade union movement has historically acted on the basis
that the maintenance of certain key conditions of employment as a community
standard is important enough to justify sacrifice of some very low wage
jobs in individual companies - affordability of wage and conditions
improvements should be considered across industries and across the economy.
 In past decades this has enabled stronger workers to win conditions that
have then flowed to weaker workers.  (Note that this system is being
dismantled by the current conservative government).

But if we look at, for example, the work of Conforth et al on the
experience of workers collectives, we see a group of organisations that
often pay below community standard wages.  These are small businesses, not
big ones, and they seem to teeter on the brink of failure for most of their
'lives'.

So where do they fit into a notion of worker solidarity.  What if they are
competing with businesses that are conventionally owned, but pay decent
wages ?  Can unions work with these worker-owners effectively, or are their
interests not aligned with workers in general.

The Mondragon wgaes solidarity policy is a good example of how the
interests of worker owners and workers in general can be aligned.  But
imagine a case where the choice was between basic wages and survival of a
worker owmed firm.  There seems to be great potential for conflict between
union policies and worker enterprises in such cases.  

I am interested in any research, other than the Cornforth et al studies,
that might shed some light on worker ownership of small businesses.  If the
experience is universally one of low wage / poor conditions, perhaps we are
barking up th wrong tree ?

Lisa Fowkes