Enough is enough. I'm tired of all the hate being directed at labor unions.
The casual ease with which Americans now talk about outlawing unions and collective bargaining is breathtaking in its audacity. The normalcy accorded to this very radical idea is evidence of just how far right political discourse has moved in the USA. The state legislature in Wisconsin passed just such a law and despite some early press coverage, the story has turned out to be basically a non-event. Teachers have once again been made out to be villains in order to advance this agenda. We have an odious Supreme Court that is so cruel and dismissive of individuals that it effectively denied women the right to sue for any substantive back pay if they discover that their employer has been paying them less than a man with an identical job. Against this legal backdrop, unions are more important than ever!
Where is the moral wrong is forming an organization to represent collective interests? Though the very word 'union' has come to connote corruption and inefficiency, let's not forget that it's ultimately just a group of people coming together to negotiate from a position of greater strength. The owners are always organized: it's embedded into the very structure of a corporation. Management acts collectively on behalf of the owners. Similarly, in the case of public employees, government organizations act collectively on behalf of the taxpayers. To assume that unionized employees are somehow 'cheating' the companies that employ workers is either disingenuous or dangerously ignorant. If anything, the unfair situation is in preventing workers from organizing and leaving them to negotiate in isolation against an obviously organized ownership.
I am by no means trying to make the argument that unions have not made some bad decisions. Of course they have. Nevertheless, it takes a suspension of reason to leap from this fact to the conclusion that unions should not have the right to exist. Consider that most every type of organization has made mistakes; notably, corporations have routinely made devastating financial and environmental mistakes in only the past few years. Consider also that a union can only negotiate. Thus, every bad deal struck by unions has been a deal struck by bad management. Where are the calls for outlawing corporate organization? There haven't been, because that would be irrational. If one sets aside ugly politics and stops to think, it becomes evident that the same is true for unions.
You're giving up chicken?!?!
ReplyDelete"Consider also that a union can only negotiate."
ReplyDeleteMy ass that's all they can do. They can strike!!!
The issue at hand in Wisconsin is legislation curtailing the rights of specifically public sector union workers.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, in a private sector bargaining process, labor and management are meant to balance each other's interests. The argument against public sector negotiation is that management (government) has a conflict of interest because it is also courting the workers' vote at election time.
I don't support the legislation in Wisconsin, but I think you should address this distinction.
Stephen: Yes, unions have the right to strike, but this is a legitimate negotiation technique. Workers are not indentured servants, and are thankfully not the property of their employers so it is within their rights to choose not to work. You as an individual wouldn't work if you deemed the contract with your employer unsatisfactory: why is the standard different when workers are acting collectively? As a libertarian, I would expect you to respect their rights to self determination. I would hasten to add that striking is never taken lightly-- striking workers are not getting paid, and this is a very difficult situation for most working class individuals to bear.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Thank you for pointing out the details of the law passed in Wisconsin. Nonetheless, I think the principle is the same. Fundamentally, the right to organize and form associations is fairly basic. Additionally, I find the argument about governments bureaucrats having a conflict of interest unconvincing. Government workers typically make up a minority of the electorate (notably, often a minority with little money to fund campaigns, as in Wisconsin teachers). Political figures have more to lose by agreeing to lavish compensation packages for a privileged minority.
Even if you don't grant me this, I fail to see how the principle is changed. If anything, American history preaches constant suspicion and skepticism of government-- American laws supporting association and organization have as much to do (if not more) with protecting the people from the arbitrary will of corrupt or unfair government as they do with protecting people from corporations. So if anything, I think historical precedent lends *more* support for unions when the employer is a governmental organization.
maybe you should write about jenny!
ReplyDeleteMissed your response.... so I'll add to my point:
ReplyDeleteUnder normal circumstances workers acting collectively to negotiate wages with their employer would cause no harm to the labor markets "clearing" and operating efficiently.
A group of workers could organize together and demand a higher wage, if their line of work was unique and highly skilled with not much competition then the Firms demanding their labor may likely pay them this higher wage. Over time the higher wages should attract more people to go out and acquire the skills necessary for that line of work, thereby increasing the supply of labor and bringing the wages back down.
If the line or work is not highly specialized and easily replaced with other workers then the firms can choose not to give them a wage increase and simply employ new workers willing to work for the current wage. Normal market mechanisms all work just fine in the presence of organized labor negotiating wages / contracts.
The problem is that this is not really the case at all. What we really have is STATE SPONSORED unions. This throws everything out of whack. When workers organize and use their collective political vote to gain support and protection from the government then the market mechanisms that worked just fine before to allocate labor to firms at fair costs are broken.
The insanity of teachers unions and getting tenure after 3 years of work is a perfect example. Or good luck trying to get any sort of contracting or construction work done with out hiring a union worker. In certain cases I believe it's actually illegal!! The fact that the unions get all this support from the Government in exchange for votes is what causes all the problems.
This thread is kind of old (just catching up on Gawking, sorry NKW) but I'd like to issue response, of sorts, to stephen)
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what is meant here in reference to 'state sponsored unions.'(I'm assuming he doesn't just mean all unions of public employees) There are a variety of things the government can do to make it easier for unions to organize and conduct their business (not all of them good, of course)just like it can also help management. Finding a legal/regulatory environment that is fair to both groups is not necessarily simple.
The fact that groups, not just labor unions, solicit the government for benefits is a fact of democracy. Criticizing the resulting policies is fine but blaming the mere existence of one particular group for so many problems (and is apparently fashionable now)smacks of a lack of objectivity or perspective. Those who receive public monies as salary have just as much right to redress the government as anyone.