CopilotDoug
Captain of Industry
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Posts
- 2,644
The truth is the Union with the higher turnover rate achieved better benefits for its membership. In theory, the "European Model" which, as you described subscribes to stability for Union leadership to gain the necessary wisdom and knowledge for negotiating with the company, would appeal to conventional wisdom. In theory the "American Model" of high leadership turnover would be more volotile and less productive for the membership. Theory doesn't always work well in practice.The Kleiner and Pilarski study is a joke of a "scientific" study. There was no significant sample size. The two unions you mention, both blue-collar unions in California, were the only unions observed for this "study." No conclusions can be drawn from such a limited sample size. To get any real data, a wide-scale study would be needed.
The truth is, recalls and turnover are usually a bad thing. You need experience in office, not starry-eyed newbies that don't have a clue what they're doing. You should find elected leaders that do a good job, and keep them for the long haul.