Written
on March 29th, 2012
Through
the National Labor Relations Act, states can administer Compulsory
Unionism laws, which permit a workplace to fire an employee if he or
she does not join the union which the employer has given
authorization to exclusively represent laborers in negotiations with
the employer. These laws also permit such unions to sue competing
unions out of existence, whether they are more moderate or more
radical in their demands.
Through
the Taft-Hartley Act, states can administer Right-to-Work laws, which
prohibit employers and unions from colluding to require employees to
join unions and / or pay dues as a condition of hiring or continued
employment, and permit alternative unions to compete against
well-established unions to represent workers.
Proponents
of Compulsory Unionism are apt to characterize laborers who do not
pay dues to unions but continue to work as free-riders. Although the
passage of Right-to-Work laws may have a negative effect on the
extent of unionized employment, their passage has caused short-term
increases in unionized employment.
Legal
recognition of particular unions’ exclusive rights to represent
workers in negotiations with management limits the range of
acceptable association between workers. It creates impediments to
strikes, undermines the influence of small and new unions, and
increases artificial scarcity in the labor market through the
imposition of wage controls and licensing standards.
Compulsory
Unionism also increases the risk of conspiracies between agencies of
government, capital, and labor to extract more taxes, profit, and
dues from employees; and the risk that unions will allow free-rider
problems to be created in order to improve their bargaining leverage,
and cultivate a public reputation as being taken advantage of and as
not encouraging parasitism or reward without contribution.
How
can the left claim to desire universal employment where every worker
receives the full product of their labor, yet accept government
creation of artificial scarcity in the job market by imposing
licensing standards, and impose wage controls which prevent
low-skilled workers from determining what the product of their labor
is worth for their own subjective purposes?
Why are some in the labor movement willing to tolerate corporate personhood for big business as long as unions and left-wing PACs retain the freedom to contribute inordinate amounts to political campaigns?
Why are so many self-described anarchists who oppose monopoly and government violence willing to accept the government’s monopoly on legitimate force so long as the government uses preventive intimidation of taxpayers and capital to extend exclusive privileges to unions?
Isn’t it time to free-up the market for the negotiation on behalf of labor, and allow new unions to compete without being sued by the established union?
For
more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment