eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (08/03/85)
[Continuing the discussion with MRH on appropriate levels of economic freedom] > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > I specifically disagree with the idea of breaking unions. Unions are > entirely compatible with the idea of a free market, and should be considered > compatible with libertarian ideas of non-coercion. Indeed, the origin of a > great deal of law concerning unions was to prevent physical coercion by > employers against employees attempting to freely organize. Naturally, > there is a fair amount wrong with unionization and laws concerning it today: > but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Although I am a new subscriber to net.politics, I am sure unions have received considerable attention in the past, and perhaps the can of worms is best left unopened. However, discussing points we agree upon can become very boring, very quickly. Since this seems to be the most significant disagreement, here goes: When I expressed approval for Reagan's union "breaking" policies, I undoubtedly exaggerated my true position. Actually, I am very libertarian with regard to unions, and I cannot condone legislation supporting or restricting organized labor. In my opinion, unions are (should be) a specific instantiation of contractual agreements; a group of workers signs a contract with an employing agency, agreeing to provide services for specific salaries and working conditions. when the contract is up, anything goes. Neither party should be obligated to renew the contract, and neither party may violate an existing contract. This implies, the company cannot fire union members during the contract period, or change their salaries or working conditions, *UNLESS* the employees themselves are violating the contract (e.g. not providing the services due to incompetence, laziness, or going out on strike). When it is time to negotiate a new contract, either side should be able to say "screw you" with impunity. Since the existing body of laws is so pro-union, a shift towards libertarianism would be perceived as "union-breaking". This discussion is particularly salient, given the recent united vs pilots conflict. The courts ruled that united could *not* fire non-union trainees honoring the pilots' picket lines, due to some "railway labor act". Yet, these trainees were clearly violating their own contractual agreement, and (to my mind) the pink slips were justified. This is one in a series of outdated, counterproductive laws, that constrains companies unnecessarily. I believe *most* of these pro-union laws are now inappropriate, and should be repealed. A few reasons follow; more can be supplied as flames demand. In the example above (pilots), am I really suppose to feel sorry for workers receiving lots of time off, plenty of benefits, and a six figure salary?? Give me a break! The one I feel sorry for is me, every time I buy an airline ticket. The pilots, like most union workers, are afraid of being paid what they are worth. Flaming aside, externally supported unions artificially inflate the cost of labor, making products more expensive, harming companies, increasing unemployment by shifting linear programming models towards automation, introducing unnecessary chaos into the economy, making U.S. products expensive (relative to the world market), etc. I am not categorically condemning all union support, but given the drawbacks, pro-union legislation should be the rare exception. There may be a class of workers, somewhere, who still face a monopoly of employment, and must fight fire with fire. You will have to convince me of this; case by case. The laws you mentioned (e.g. child labor, 8 hour day, etc) are good laws, and I agree, unions were instrumental in their inception. Laws establishing safe and reasonable working conditions are, and always will be, appropriate, since any company can become a short term monopoly. It takes time to find a new job, and even more time to receive training in a new field. Modifying salaries to reflect changing market conditions is one thing; exposing workers to life/health threatening environments is quite another. Laws governing safe working conditions should be rigidly enforced. In summary, these laws are the baby, residual pro-union legislation is the bath water. This is already long, and any of the above paragraphs could easily be expanded into an article, so I will stop here, and give MRH a chance to respond. Can you clarify your position? What should be done about union legislation, and *how* can it be accomplished, given the inertia of our legal system, and the power of the union lobbiests? -- This .signature file intentionally left blank. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/15/85)
[Disclaimer: while I disagree with many aspects of libertarianism, I will here argue from that viewpoint.] In article <270@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: > [Continuing the discussion with MRH on appropriate levels of economic freedom] > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > I specifically disagree with the idea of breaking unions. Unions are > > entirely compatible with the idea of a free market, and should be considered > > compatible with libertarian ideas of non-coercion. Indeed, the origin of a > > great deal of law concerning unions was to prevent physical coercion by > > employers against employees attempting to freely organize. Naturally, > > there is a fair amount wrong with unionization and laws concerning it today: > > but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. > > When I expressed approval for Reagan's union "breaking" policies, > I undoubtedly exaggerated my true position. > Actually, I am very libertarian with regard to unions, and I cannot > condone legislation supporting or restricting organized labor. > In my opinion, unions are (should be) a specific instantiation > of contractual agreements; a group of workers signs a contract > with an employing agency, agreeing to provide services for specific > salaries and working conditions. when the contract is up, anything goes. I have a [different?] vision of unions. Unions are voluntary contractual organizations, much like corporations. They provide a service at a fee, decided by contract. A clause of that contract may be exclusive rights to providing certain manpower services, thus excluding non-union independant and/or individual contractors. > Neither party should be obligated to renew the contract, and neither > party may violate an existing contract. > This implies, the company cannot fire union members during the contract > period, or change their salaries or working conditions, > *UNLESS* the employees themselves are violating the contract (e.g. not > providing the services due to incompetence, laziness, or going out on strike). > When it is time to negotiate a new contract, either side should be able > to say "screw you" with impunity. Either side right now can say "screw you" with legal impunity. Economic impunity is a different story. Both sides can suffer economically. [Long and interesting discussion deleted, claiming economic costs from protection and protectionism of unions.] At the heart of the union argument is a basic question that is poorly addressed by libertarians. The question of what powers are to be allowed to grow, and what will limit them. In a libertarian society, an employer might help or hinder employees to organize for a union, so long as he is "non-coercive". So, instead of allowing a parallel power structure to arise, it will usually be in an employers interest to hinder such organization. By banning campaigning on his property, firing proponents (usually feasible: pay off whatever contracts the few rabblerousers have), and a variety of other union-busting techniques. Thus we have a strong tendency to monolithic organizations, with no checks and balances. And a de-facto right to stiffle other potential organizations that, once "born", might compete perfectly well in the libertarian free market. I feel that one of the strong points of our system of organization in the USA is that the interactions of rival power structures (business, military, government, union, class action, pacs, press, etc.) provide the feedback which makes our system stable, and reduces the prevalence of abuse. It levels our society, and makes it more equitable. It helps to prevent the emergence of castes or feudalism. From this point of view, I view unions as an important feature of our society. Encouraging the formation of entities like unions is comparable to encouraging the formation of businesses: people can benefit. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh