After having an enormously long argument on another thread it seems that everyone here thinks that just about every single rule a government may think up to "interfere" with the "free market" is bound to be bad and make the economy worse... Now I have just finished reading "economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt and noted that he talked rather disparagingly about the work of unions, so presumably Austrians disapprove on unions and would like to perhaps ban them or curb their powers (am I right?). But then we have a contradiction:- unions presumably can evolve right out of a free market, so one could say they are even part of a free market and the only thing that can be done to reduce their power is to let the government create some rules to suppress the unions... but then that's like the government interfering with the free market... which so many people here say is a bad thing.
So how do you resolve that contradiction?
The obvious answer to me appears to be that maybe *most* things a government does to interfere with the free market are bead, but there are a *few* things that they should do.
I will not argue with whatever argument you wish to give on the inefficiancy and unfair laws unions may have. I would probably agree with most arguments regarding that. What I wonder is, how much of a target should unions be among free market advocats? Most people seem to associate free market advocats with corprotism or neo-cons anyway, as well as extrodinarily anti-union in political matters.
In today's world the market is far from free, corporations as they exist is at least debatable with free marketeers, even if they agree with corporations certainly they would disagree with corprotism/ crony capitalism I would imagine. It seems like a losing battle in propaganda to seem "anti-labor and pro-Corporation" when the situation doesn't call for it.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
liberty student:when firms unionize, it is the lowest skilled and least productive workers who vote for the union, and the most skilled don't vote or abstain. That's because better workers are already compensated based on the leverage that they could change firms, or become competitors. They don't get anything out of having their fortune tied to the less productive, less skilled workers with less career mobility.
Having had the unfortunate experience of being in a union of mostly low skill workers, I can tell you that this is exactly the case.
Whenever there was a vote on whether we should increase the power of the union, or even vote to strike, it was always the same, lazy, below average workers who would vote affirmative; an increase in the base minimum wage for the workers would affect them, because they hadn't been able to advance up the ladder.
In contrast, those who had worked hard for a long period of time, and been able to advance because of it, saw no reason to associate themselves even more with these workers, and would always vote against it.
Unions are inherently coercive. They don't actually have control of property in order to exclude, and so they have to rely on monopoly privilege, either enforced by the state, or by violence (Tom Woods covers this in his 10 part lecture series on Mises org). Corporations may seek privilege as it relates to liability, but the act of pooling capital to engage in large scale projects is not inherently coercive.
Falling back on a one-sided tunnel-vision again, I see.
Corporations (particularly many of the large-scale ones) certainly often seek privileges in many ways other than limited liability, and certainly are no less in bed with the state than many unions. You can downplay this in the name of anti-leftism all you want, but as a matter of general principle there is no difference between the union issue and the corporate issue in the context of our current political system - both involve the use of the state to tip the scales of bargaining power and shield various interest groups from competition. You just have a clear preferance for one of the interest groups.
Brainpolice: Unions are inherently coercive. They don't actually have control of property in order to exclude, and so they have to rely on monopoly privilege, either enforced by the state, or by violence (Tom Woods covers this in his 10 part lecture series on Mises org). Corporations may seek privilege as it relates to liability, but the act of pooling capital to engage in large scale projects is not inherently coercive. Falling back on a one-sided tunnel-vision again, I see. Corporations (particularly many of the large-scale ones) certainly often seek privileges in many ways other than limited liability, and certainly are no less in bed with the state than many unions. You can downplay this in the name of anti-leftism all you want, but as a matter of general principle there is no difference between the union issue and the corporate issue in the context of our current political system - both involve the use of the state to tip the scales of bargaining power and shield various interest groups from competition. You just have a clear preferance for one of the interest groups.
I agree with most of what you say, but only "in the context of our current political system". Nothing that you quoted is untrue, however. Unions are coercive, and would be in a free market, as well. Corporations, while certainly seeking privilege in the current system, would only be able to restrict liability in a free market, which is, as LS put it, not inherently coercive.
The Austrian view on competition and collusion almost precludes unions. As long as some people have an advantage over others in employability and know it, people with a known advantage will have no monetary incentive for joining a union. If there would really be such a collusion of labour, why would there not be collusion in anything else? Unions as we know them would vanish in Rothbard's totally free market.
Brainpolice:I don't see why we couldn't make a similar argument about corporations.
Go ahead and make the argument. It's a bit off topic for this thread about unions, though, don't you think?
JackCuyler:I agree with most of what you say, but only "in the context of our current political system". Nothing that you quoted is untrue, however. Unions are coercive, and would be in a free market, as well. Corporations, while certainly seeking privilege in the current system, would only be able to restrict liability in a free market, which is, as LS put it, not inherently coercive.
How do you know that unions would be coercive in a free market?
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
mickanomics: Can you give an example of a (bad) special privilege that may have been granted to a union.
By law, once a majority of your employees votes to organize into a union, you must enter into negotiations with them for a collective bargaining agreement rather than negotiating the terms of an employment contract on an individual basis. In a free market, you are under no obligation to enter into a contract with anybody. This is why unions are practically non-existent in "right to work" states. In "union shop" states, a/k/a the Rust Belt, unions have driven capital to the Sun Belt and overseas. So the unions have a big stack of laws protecting their status, but nobody to hire their members.
Thank you. Good point.
Union gain their power depending on how much government support they are given or how much the market gives them For example if there is a union of very skilled workers who are in high demand that union will be able to argue for very good wages etc for those members. Though such people of course don't need unions, their skills do the negotiating for them.
Dondoolee:hat I wonder is, how much of a target should unions be among free market advocats? Most people seem to associate free market advocats with corprotism or neo-cons anyway, as well as extrodinarily anti-union in political matters.
I don't care what misguided people think. I don't think unions need to be a target at all. I just think the libertarians who are pro-union are terribly misguided.
Dondoolee:In today's world the market is far from free, corporations as they exist is at least debatable with free marketeers, even if they agree with corporations certainly they would disagree with corprotism/ crony capitalism I would imagine.
Sure, but why do people keep bringing up corporations in a discussion about unions? They are two very different animals.
Dondoolee:It seems like a losing battle in propaganda to seem "anti-labor and pro-Corporation" when the situation doesn't call for it.
As long as you allow other people to define the boundaries and terms of discussion, one will always lose the propaganda war.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Seph: Having had the unfortunate experience of being in a union of mostly low skill workers, I can tell you that this is exactly the case. Whenever there was a vote on whether we should increase the power of the union, or even vote to strike, it was always the same, lazy, below average workers who would vote affirmative; an increase in the base minimum wage for the workers would affect them, because they hadn't been able to advance up the ladder. In contrast, those who had worked hard for a long period of time, and been able to advance because of it, saw no reason to associate themselves even more with these workers, and would always vote against it.
Pro-union libertarians don't want to hear anecdotal evidence that contradicts any of their pet ideals. But I appreciate it. Thanks.
Brainpolice: Falling back on a one-sided tunnel-vision again, I see. Corporations (particularly many of the large-scale ones) certainly often seek privileges in many ways other than limited liability, and certainly are no less in bed with the state than many unions. You can downplay this in the name of anti-leftism all you want, but as a matter of general principle there is no difference between the union issue and the corporate issue in the context of our current political system - both involve the use of the state to tip the scales of bargaining power and shield various interest groups from competition.
Corporations (particularly many of the large-scale ones) certainly often seek privileges in many ways other than limited liability, and certainly are no less in bed with the state than many unions. You can downplay this in the name of anti-leftism all you want, but as a matter of general principle there is no difference between the union issue and the corporate issue in the context of our current political system - both involve the use of the state to tip the scales of bargaining power and shield various interest groups from competition.
Trade unions were notoriously violent prior to the state cartelizing their use of force under the federal monopoly.
A History of Labor Unions From Colonial Times to 2009
Perhaps corporations were as well, but we're not discussing corporations, we're talking about unions.
Brainpolice:You just have a clear preferance for one of the interest groups.
I think you must be referring to yourself. I have no preference for unions or corporations. I have no preference for firms or councils. Only individuals.
liberty student: Dondoolee:hat I wonder is, how much of a target should unions be among free market advocats? Most people seem to associate free market advocats with corprotism or neo-cons anyway, as well as extrodinarily anti-union in political matters. I don't care what misguided people think. I don't think unions need to be a target at all. I just think the libertarians who are pro-union are terribly misguided. Dondoolee:In today's world the market is far from free, corporations as they exist is at least debatable with free marketeers, even if they agree with corporations certainly they would disagree with corprotism/ crony capitalism I would imagine. Sure, but why do people keep bringing up corporations in a discussion about unions? They are two very different animals. Dondoolee:It seems like a losing battle in propaganda to seem "anti-labor and pro-Corporation" when the situation doesn't call for it. As long as you allow other people to define the boundaries and terms of discussion, one will always lose the propaganda war.
Please believe me when I say I have NO sympathy for unions, and I have watched them contribute to my hometown's detrerioration from a decent place to live to a point of irrelevance within 15 years. That being said I do care what misguided people think, if there are enough misguided people thinking in misguided ways to effect me (and this has effected me greatly as a small business owner in a still heavy union city). The fact of the matter is all the major propaganda is mostly pro union (most news, hollywood, academia, etc) and it is much more fashionable to be pro union than anti-union. I don't think you would deny that. I as an individual (particularly in regards to unions due to my geography and my personal interests) must be very careful as to how any idea is presented in a useful way.
Personally I think it would be much more useful as a whole for free market people to market them selves in a different way. Right now in pop culture (or the mainstream what ever you wish to call it) we are probably seen as pro war, imperialistic, pro corprotism, anti-"labor", pro racism, pro Satan, anti God, pro everything bad, anti everything good, etc. Battles and words must be picked carefully and tactfully I think, particularly when discussing anything with "lay people".
I believe you had a Gary North quote as a sig that said something along the lines of "if you see something wobble, push it" I do not think being seen by the general public as anti union is pushing something that wobbles. In fact, I believe if we are seen by the general public at this point in time as picking on unions and being pro corporate; and then we end up making strong arguments against unions, our enemies will see us (in my opinion, rightfully so as far as pop culture goes) as the wobbly ones and push us down.
On the bright side, people like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are slowly changing the public perception as to what the free market is, but it is still far from the mainstream views of libertarianism I think. One has to have a decent marketing strat and maybe sometimes a bit of (gasp!) Machiavelli in them to acomplish things, and i am of the opinion that attacking unions is not the way to go at this point in time (particularly after the bailouts). This is why I bring up corporations when some one else brings up unions, at this point in time it needs a counter point in an already heavily distorted market. On top of that, we are in a position right now where all the laws and everything else is so out of whack it doesn't really matter which one we attack, we may as well attack the corporatism as it has more populist appeal and a better chance of improving our name and selling points. I think it would be more profitable to worry about corporations more today.
This is a free marketeer's moment to capitalize on speaking out against big business/corprations/banking over the little guy. I see this as the free marketer's moment to have more "everyday" people be receptive to his ideas. Why squander such a golden opportunity on ripping on unions, which at this specific point in time may hurt more than it will help.
What was the point of that post? This is what I wrote,
Liberty Student:I don't think unions need to be a target at all. I just think the libertarians who are pro-union are terribly misguided.
As an offtopic aside,
If you want to parse words and dance around people's ignorance, be my guest. I won't, but I still don't see why this is even an issue. We have one thread, discussing the economic and social truth about unions, and you are concerned we are going to turn people off to libertarianism over it.
Dondoolee:I believe you had a Gary North quote as a sig that said something along the lines of "if you see something wobble, push it" I do not think being seen by the general public as anti union is pushing something that wobbles.
The quote was, if you see something evil wobble, push it. You can go prop up or ignore evil if you think that will advance liberty. I will not.
As long as you play the statists game, with their language, concerned about their feelings, you will lose. Tell the truth. Stand for something resolutely.
If you're afraid of being disliked by everyone, then you will never be liked by anyone.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap