I was surprised to find out that Libertarians oppose unions. I do agree that Unions strip a lot of economic freedom from business' but they are formed by people, not by the law or government. They often prevent employers being abusive, or unfair however.
Democracy for Breakfast:Don't Unions exercise the right to assembly?
There is no such right. Libertarians support property rights. On YOUR property, you can freely associate with who you want.
On company property, you have no right to hold a union election, petition your fellow workers to join your union, advertise the union, conduct any union related business etc.
Without the capacity to organize in the workplace (unless one used an inordinate amount of subterfuge and dishonesty aka time theft) I don't see how 100% unionization could occur in any significantly sized group of employees.
That's just some of the free market problems in ESTABLISHING the union.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Daniel: Democracy for Breakfast: Saan: Government protected unions, yes. Voluntary Unions, no. Is the UFT Government protected? How is it not?
Democracy for Breakfast: Saan: Government protected unions, yes. Voluntary Unions, no. Is the UFT Government protected?
Saan: Government protected unions, yes. Voluntary Unions, no.
Government protected unions, yes. Voluntary Unions, no.
Is the UFT Government protected?
How is it not?
I don't know, but let me restate my original post. Libertarians do not support government protected unions. Libertarians don't care one way or another if a union is not propped up by government. I do not think a free market would give rise to unions. Without violence most unions would be broken by scabs. It happens in Nevada all the time. Recently scabs were brought in by Granite construction to break a union strike at the Reno/Tahoe airport.. The union members are still unemployed, and the construction is almost complete. Nevada doesn't protect unions, but sometimes the FEDGOV overrides them.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Saan:I do not think a free market would give rise to unions.
I agree. I don't believe a free market tends towards solidarity as a means of increasing the general welfare, but rather through competition and the division of labour. Likewise, I don't think the free market will make protest or boycott less effective than competition and so those tactics will also have diminished utility where other (and potentially better) options exist.
A free market wouldn't give rise to unions, because in a free market there would be no need for Unions. Libertarians must remember at all times that in world as it exists today Buisness does not operate as a free market, rather as a cartelised market which benefits a minority of priveleged interests who exploit the majority. The Big Buisness of today didn't get where it is today through free and fair competition but through monopoly privilege and by preventing competition through regulation.
The virtue of the union is that they increase the bargaining power of labour. In any master/servant relationship it is in the interests of the master to obtain labour cheaply whereas it is in the servants to sell their labour dearly. The master or employer prefers a non-unionised workforce because he holds a superior bargaining position: if an individual walks off the job because he doesn't like the pay and conditions it imposes a great cost on the individual, but a neglible one for the firm as he is probably just one individual out of hundreds or thousands who's disapearance won't impact on running of the buisness.
When the employer negotiates pay and conditions with a unionised worker he is in a far weaker bargaining position, if he tries to bully the worker into accept pay and conditions below what the Union deems acceptable the employer risks most of his workforce downing tools and walking off the jobs thereby imposing crippling costs to the firm. The idea that a Union needs 100% participation through violence and intimidation to make a strike effective is a fallacy.
Maybe they are formed by people, but their actual power is granted to them by government and its law.
I don't know how about the U.S. but in Poland union officials are paid by... Employers! I always wonder - whom do they serve... ;-)
The question of unions is not simply whether they harm or hurt business. The intent of an anarcho-capitalistic system is to provide the individual with the best possible protection from abuse. That is what unions claim to do for workers. The question is why can't unions compete with each other for employees? If that is forbidden, then they become a form of government ruling employees and businesses.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
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