Unionization is a complicated topic for libertarians. Usually, it's not really much our business, if the union in question is organizing workers in private industry. The First Amendment guarantees the right of free association, so there is nothing suspect about joining a union. One might argue that the company also has the right of free association, and thus has the freedom to not be associated with union members. The hedge against that is the unity of the union, the threat of striking and bringing the company to its knees.
I am generally pro-union. As a college student I was required to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers when I read electric meters for Union Electric. My father was a Teamster. My grandfather was a union activist with the Glass Worker's union. Back then, unions were necessary for several reasons. One, the legal fiction that is the corporation was growing larger, more powerful, and legally complicated. One person against a corporation is a hopeless cause in the case of a dispute. Two, conditions for workers were sometimes dangerous, and frequently unhealthy from a long-term perspective. If work was scarce, you made a choice of a living or your life. Third, the court system was expensive, and corporations had plenty of resources to fight any lawsuits an individual might bring.
When my grandfather began working for Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG Industries) in Crystal City, MO, in the '30s, he worked in the polishing room, where they use rouge (the same stuff they use for women's makeup) to polish glass to a high shine. This process produces a lot of glass dust, and the rouge is dusty as well. When he asked his management for a respirator to wear, they pretty much said, "hey, if you don't like your job, there are 100 men outside that gate who would love to have it." 40 years later, he would die of that glass dust and rouge at the relatively young age of 67.
When my father was a Teamster, it was a different era. Jimmy Hoffa's union was as powerful as the corporations the union members worked for. While many of the unions had already fallen to the lure of greed, the Teamsters continued to spend money on their own people. To combat this, the other unions colluded with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to make all union benefits taxable. That made many Teamster benefits, such as poor houses, impractical and the programs ended. The suggestion that Hoffa and the Teamsters were in bed with the Mafia has been debated at length, but my grandfather doubted it. According to my father, he said, "The Teamsters didn't need the Mob. We were our own mob."
It could be said that throughout the '70s and '80s, the unions became their own worst enemy, falling victim to corruption, poorly picking their battles, forcing sclerotic work rules upon their employers, protecting seniority over merit, and various other sins. Their roles as support for their members have faded, as Federal agencies like OSHA and programs like unemployment insurance took over for everyone what the unions did for their members. Younger workers, never having seen the way things used to be, concluded that they didn't need unions anymore. The public's opinion of them became profoundly negative. Their power and influence declined. In 1945, about 33 percent of American workers had union representation. That figure had declined to less than 14 percent by 1998.
Whether or not unions are still necessary is debatable, but what isn't debatable is your right to associate with one. Collective bargaining, the central feature of unionization, is a product of that freedom of association combined with the corporation's respect for and fear of equal standing in negotiating the terms of employment association. Without a union, employment becomes a take-it-or-leave-it proposal of one against a gigantic legal fiction.
What if that employer is the government? Can the government itself indulge in the same abuses that a large corporation might? Of course. That is why we distrust large governments. Many would argue that without minimum wages, without protections, corporations would no longer barter fairly, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. If you amass enough control, you can easily force upon a person a Devil's deal. Given enough mismatch between the power of the company and the power of the worker, the capitalism of labor fails to function properly. This is not always a problem, provided people have enough mobility and the economy is functioning properly. But this has been an issue, such as with the past phenomenon of "company towns", as well as serious economic downturns like the Great Depression, the moribund stagflation period of the '70s, and the bursting of the housing bubble last decade.
Both corporations and unions enjoy government protections that libertarians would disapprove of. If we strip those away, we do not strip away the rights that dwell behind both. The laws have simply been crafted to tilt the playing field one way or the other. Unions lobby for laws protecting them when economic conditions work against them. Corporations lobby for anti-union laws when economic conditions work against them. Corporations and unions usually don't get along.
Corporate policies don't carry the force of law. But what's going on in Wisconsin is different. There, the legislature is voting to pass a law that tilts the playing field strongly in favor of the employer, i.e. the state government of Wisconsin, and their "policy" does in fact carry the force of law. Furthermore, it explicitly abridges both the Union's free speech rights, and unfairly redraws the playing field by unilaterally placing its demands into law. We know that Scott Walker is trying to balance Wisconsin's budget. That is admirable and desirable. But you cannot run roughshod over people's rights to get there. Supposedly, the purportedly intractable unions have in fact agreed to the budget cuts Walker wants, but Walker has rejected their agreement. He wants to bust the union purely for political purposes. He is banking on the public's lingering dislike of unions to defend his effort. If this were a state legislature passing a law to strip workers of collective bargaining in the private sector, it should be roundly condemned by libertarians as an inexcusable interference in the internal affairs of a private entity. But when the employer is the government itself, and it is being paid for by tax money, and the budget is out of whack, does that make things different?
I cannot agree with that. Remember, union rights arise from two Constitutional guarantees, the right of free speech and the right of free association. If corporations can incorporate themselves, so can unions. If corporations have rights, then so do unions. You cannot pick one over the other. Either both have rights, or neither do. You can't pick just because the money situation is inconvenient. If we had a guaranteed-to-work plan in hand to balance all Federal and state budgets, eliminate the public debt, and insure economic prosperity, but it required eliminating freedom of religion (or the right to bear arms), would we as minarchists rush off the cliff to embrace it?
Corporations with unions are forced to negotiate in good faith or suffer the consequences of the union's power. Governments with unions can simply create laws that eliminate the need to negotiate in good faith.
I've read several articles saying that the elimination of collective bargaining rights is a lie, and that it's only about the budget and the cost of benefits. That is itself a lie, and a crafty, disingenuous one at that. The law eliminates all collective bargaining except for negotiating salaries. That leaves a kibble of collective bargaining so Walker can claim he hasn't eliminated it, but leaves the union the least desirable right in the public's eyes, playing to the public's assumption of unions as greed machines for their members. If this was about the budget, why leave the *most expensive part*? He could have stripped the unions of the right to negotiate benefits and salary and job security, and left them the right to negotiate for working conditions and due process rights. He didn't. So, it's apparently not about money or the budget.
I'm sure there are decent arguments you could throw against me. Was it legitimate to unionize government workers in the first place? How can we reduce the size of government with unions in place to oppose it? What about opposing legislators fleeing to deny a vote on the measure? Sure, we could debate that, but it won't change the immediate problem. Scott Walker needs to slow down, back off, and play fair. If the unions have agreed to your budget concessions, TAKE THEM. Balance your silly budget first. Then worry about your political vendetta against unions.
I am generally pro-union. As a college student I was required to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers when I read electric meters for Union Electric. My father was a Teamster. My grandfather was a union activist with the Glass Worker's union. Back then, unions were necessary for several reasons. One, the legal fiction that is the corporation was growing larger, more powerful, and legally complicated. One person against a corporation is a hopeless cause in the case of a dispute. Two, conditions for workers were sometimes dangerous, and frequently unhealthy from a long-term perspective. If work was scarce, you made a choice of a living or your life. Third, the court system was expensive, and corporations had plenty of resources to fight any lawsuits an individual might bring.
When my grandfather began working for Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG Industries) in Crystal City, MO, in the '30s, he worked in the polishing room, where they use rouge (the same stuff they use for women's makeup) to polish glass to a high shine. This process produces a lot of glass dust, and the rouge is dusty as well. When he asked his management for a respirator to wear, they pretty much said, "hey, if you don't like your job, there are 100 men outside that gate who would love to have it." 40 years later, he would die of that glass dust and rouge at the relatively young age of 67.
When my father was a Teamster, it was a different era. Jimmy Hoffa's union was as powerful as the corporations the union members worked for. While many of the unions had already fallen to the lure of greed, the Teamsters continued to spend money on their own people. To combat this, the other unions colluded with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to make all union benefits taxable. That made many Teamster benefits, such as poor houses, impractical and the programs ended. The suggestion that Hoffa and the Teamsters were in bed with the Mafia has been debated at length, but my grandfather doubted it. According to my father, he said, "The Teamsters didn't need the Mob. We were our own mob."
It could be said that throughout the '70s and '80s, the unions became their own worst enemy, falling victim to corruption, poorly picking their battles, forcing sclerotic work rules upon their employers, protecting seniority over merit, and various other sins. Their roles as support for their members have faded, as Federal agencies like OSHA and programs like unemployment insurance took over for everyone what the unions did for their members. Younger workers, never having seen the way things used to be, concluded that they didn't need unions anymore. The public's opinion of them became profoundly negative. Their power and influence declined. In 1945, about 33 percent of American workers had union representation. That figure had declined to less than 14 percent by 1998.
Whether or not unions are still necessary is debatable, but what isn't debatable is your right to associate with one. Collective bargaining, the central feature of unionization, is a product of that freedom of association combined with the corporation's respect for and fear of equal standing in negotiating the terms of employment association. Without a union, employment becomes a take-it-or-leave-it proposal of one against a gigantic legal fiction.
What if that employer is the government? Can the government itself indulge in the same abuses that a large corporation might? Of course. That is why we distrust large governments. Many would argue that without minimum wages, without protections, corporations would no longer barter fairly, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. If you amass enough control, you can easily force upon a person a Devil's deal. Given enough mismatch between the power of the company and the power of the worker, the capitalism of labor fails to function properly. This is not always a problem, provided people have enough mobility and the economy is functioning properly. But this has been an issue, such as with the past phenomenon of "company towns", as well as serious economic downturns like the Great Depression, the moribund stagflation period of the '70s, and the bursting of the housing bubble last decade.
Both corporations and unions enjoy government protections that libertarians would disapprove of. If we strip those away, we do not strip away the rights that dwell behind both. The laws have simply been crafted to tilt the playing field one way or the other. Unions lobby for laws protecting them when economic conditions work against them. Corporations lobby for anti-union laws when economic conditions work against them. Corporations and unions usually don't get along.
Corporate policies don't carry the force of law. But what's going on in Wisconsin is different. There, the legislature is voting to pass a law that tilts the playing field strongly in favor of the employer, i.e. the state government of Wisconsin, and their "policy" does in fact carry the force of law. Furthermore, it explicitly abridges both the Union's free speech rights, and unfairly redraws the playing field by unilaterally placing its demands into law. We know that Scott Walker is trying to balance Wisconsin's budget. That is admirable and desirable. But you cannot run roughshod over people's rights to get there. Supposedly, the purportedly intractable unions have in fact agreed to the budget cuts Walker wants, but Walker has rejected their agreement. He wants to bust the union purely for political purposes. He is banking on the public's lingering dislike of unions to defend his effort. If this were a state legislature passing a law to strip workers of collective bargaining in the private sector, it should be roundly condemned by libertarians as an inexcusable interference in the internal affairs of a private entity. But when the employer is the government itself, and it is being paid for by tax money, and the budget is out of whack, does that make things different?
I cannot agree with that. Remember, union rights arise from two Constitutional guarantees, the right of free speech and the right of free association. If corporations can incorporate themselves, so can unions. If corporations have rights, then so do unions. You cannot pick one over the other. Either both have rights, or neither do. You can't pick just because the money situation is inconvenient. If we had a guaranteed-to-work plan in hand to balance all Federal and state budgets, eliminate the public debt, and insure economic prosperity, but it required eliminating freedom of religion (or the right to bear arms), would we as minarchists rush off the cliff to embrace it?
Corporations with unions are forced to negotiate in good faith or suffer the consequences of the union's power. Governments with unions can simply create laws that eliminate the need to negotiate in good faith.
I've read several articles saying that the elimination of collective bargaining rights is a lie, and that it's only about the budget and the cost of benefits. That is itself a lie, and a crafty, disingenuous one at that. The law eliminates all collective bargaining except for negotiating salaries. That leaves a kibble of collective bargaining so Walker can claim he hasn't eliminated it, but leaves the union the least desirable right in the public's eyes, playing to the public's assumption of unions as greed machines for their members. If this was about the budget, why leave the *most expensive part*? He could have stripped the unions of the right to negotiate benefits and salary and job security, and left them the right to negotiate for working conditions and due process rights. He didn't. So, it's apparently not about money or the budget.
I'm sure there are decent arguments you could throw against me. Was it legitimate to unionize government workers in the first place? How can we reduce the size of government with unions in place to oppose it? What about opposing legislators fleeing to deny a vote on the measure? Sure, we could debate that, but it won't change the immediate problem. Scott Walker needs to slow down, back off, and play fair. If the unions have agreed to your budget concessions, TAKE THEM. Balance your silly budget first. Then worry about your political vendetta against unions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.