Showing posts with label labor unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor unions. Show all posts

Monday, October 30, 2017

20 Goals for Labortarians: Crafting a Libertarian Policy on Unions

1. Craft a free labor policy.
2. Less government, more unions.
3. End Right to Work laws.
4. Liberalize professional licensing.
5. Fix the free rider problem.
6. Free movement and integrated markets.
7. End unions' monopolies on negotiation.
8. Protect concerted activity.
9. Continue to require bargaining.
10. Ensure the right to strike.
11. Legalize illegal union activities.
12. Make full boycott possible.
13. Keep divestment legal.
14. Unionize all walks of life.
15. Establish free union elections.
16. Free-market anti-capitalism.
17. End slavery, domination, and dominion.
18. Counter the rhetoric of self-ownership.
19. Free association and non-discrimination.
20. Promote acceptance and tolerance.



          1. CRAFT A FREE LABOR POLICY: Advance a labor policy which celebrates the contributions that the organized labor movement has made to advancing human liberty - and which is in keeping with the Libertarian Party platform, strict-constructionist and originalist interpretations of the Constitution, and frameworks to ensure free and fair markets - by consistently supporting voluntary collective bargaining activities over compulsion, hierarchy, and state interference in the affairs of organized labor.

          2. LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE UNIONS: Retain the portion of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A. / Wagner Act) which promotes the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, but also promote the radical privatization of government services wherever possible and prudent, and demand that most or all necessary government activities be performed by non-state actors. Increase overall union membership in the United States.

          3. END RIGHT TO WORK LAWS: Support the freedom of unions to exercise their right to become party to contracts with enterprises, by opposing efforts to pass Right to Work laws and amendments, in all jurisdictions and at all levels of government. Call on state governors to nullify and repeal such laws, and state and federal courts to rule them unconstitutional, due to their prohibition of union-shop and closed-shop arrangements, union security agreements which are perfectly free and voluntary (although they may have some undesirable effects). Repeal the portion of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act which prohibits closed-shop union security agreements.

          4. LIBERALIZE PROFESSIONAL LICENSING: Make Right to Work laws unnecessary, by demanding an alternative method to preventing the domination of professions within given states by the set of unionized professionals already employed within them. Demand the liberalization of professional licensing laws, in order to accommodate independent contractors and those seeking to form unions.

          5. FIX THE FREE RIDER PROBLEM: Ensure that workers everywhere are free to “not consent and refuse the benefits” of union negotiation. Leave all employees free to refuse to pay dues to unions, but only on the condition that the employee refuse all benefits of union negotiation which he can feasibly refuse (i.e., not physical workplace safety and health conditions). Consider liability waivers as a possible solution to the safety and health free-rider problems.

          6. FREE MOVEMENT & INTEGRATED MARKETS: Fight globalism and ultranationalism, while supporting globalization, integration and interconnectedness of markets, and the free movement of labor and capital (including the freedom of locomotion for travelers and workers alike). Fight to liberalize immigration laws; end immigration quotas; lower barriers to trade; decrease tariffs, duties, and imposts; and oppose efforts of established unions to lobby for legal measures that unfairly protect or favor domestic labor. Use education to combat the stigmatization of legal and undocumented immigration.

          7. END UNIONS' MONOPOLIES ON NEGOTIATION: End compulsory unionism in the private sector, and end the rights of unions to monopolize the representation of workers in negotiation with management. Repeal the section of the Wagner Act which mandates that there is to be one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees. Spread awareness of, and normalize, the practices of members-only collective bargaining, and dual and minority unionism (the presence of two or more active unions in a single workplace). Increase the diversity of the types of union security agreements which are practiced in the United States.

          8. PROTECT CONCERTED ACTIVITY: Retain the Wagner Act's provisions that require the federal government to protect the right of union and non-union employees to engage in concerted activity, and retain the protection for discussing wages. Protect these rights, as well as the right to form a union, in all jurisdictions, and at all levels of government.

          9. CONTINUE TO REQUIRE BARGAINING: Retain the Wagner Act's requirement that employers must negotiate with employees, on the grounds that a fair market is not possible unless the buyer and seller of labor have equal say in determining the price at which the labor is to be sold.

          10. ENSURE THE RIGHT TO STRIKE: Abolish the National Labor Relations Board, and repeal the provision of the Taft-Hartley Act which prohibits wildcat strikes. No union should have to request permission from a government bureau in order to go on strike, nor should any segment of a workplace or work force be denied the right to strike without the approval of a union leader.

          11. LEGALIZE ILLEGAL UNION ACTIVITIES: Demand the legalization of prohibited union activities wherever they could be engaged in voluntarily. Repeal the portions of the Taft-Hartley Act which prohibit secondary strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, jurisdictional strikes, and monetary donations from unions to federal political campaigns.

          12. MAKE FULL BOYCOTT POSSIBLE: Fight for the full right of workers and taxpayers to engage in full boycott of enterprises and unions with which they do not wish to associate. Allow taxpayers to withhold their taxes from governments that would spend it to enrich their favored business cronies and favored unions. Call for tax strikes, which demand either the abolition of the entire corporate welfare state, or that individual citizens be free to decide which programs they will pay for and which ones they will not.

          13. KEEP DIVESTMENT LEGAL: In addition to supporting the full rights to engage in strikes and boycotts, fight for the right to engage in divestment campaigns. Encourage enterprises to end their membership in lobbying agencies that disguise themselves as chambers of commerce, and to instead join independent business alliances that promote fair treatment for workers. Keep divestment legal, whether against enterprises, unions, or even governments.

          14. UNIONIZE ALL WALKS OF LIFE: Fight for the rights of freelancers, independent contractors, free agents, unemployed people, welfare recipients, homeless people, ex-convicts, non-violent black market laborers, tenants, open-source workers and peer-to-peer process contributors, and people of all professions. to form unions. Additionally, to demand negotiation with their employers, and to resist state control, exploitation, hierarchy, and bossism.

          15. ESTABLISH FREE UNION ELECTIONS: Ensure that union members may vote in union elections, and that non-dues-paying members and dues-paying members alike are free to abstain from voting. Advocate for the freedom of union members to hold elections featuring voter privity, with results visible and subject to review by all members of the union(s) and workplace(s) involved.

          16. FREE-MARKET ANTI-CAPITALISM: Reject the Libertarian Party's endorsement of private property as a core principle, and oppose any attempts to have the party list “capitalism” or “fiscal conservatism” among its guiding economic principles, Promote the idea that markets must be completely immune from price distortions and undue limitations and inhibitions on markets (which are caused by the state and its cronies, their hoarding, and their participation in the capitalist mode of production), in order to be both fair and truly free. Combat untrue anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda, and ignorance about left-wing economics, through education and peaceful civil discourse. Oppose misinterpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle that excuses or ignores intimidation, exploitation, and economic pressures that coerce people and make their decisions limited and effectively involuntary. Oppose cutthroat competition, monopolistic competition, and competition to lower prices that neglects the right of workers to receive sufficient compensation for their effort.

          17. END SLAVERY, DOMINATION, & DOMINION: Oppose the extension of markets to the realms of “living capital”; i.e., human labor and work, and other living things. Empower consumers to resist the commodification of labor, man, and nature; calling for such market activities to cease. Abolish the markets for exclusively held landed property, the product of human labor, sex work under economic pressure and exploitation, toxic chemicals and poisons that kill when used properly, and perhaps the markets for human organs and endangered animal species. Support the rights of human beings, living or dead, to resist being owned, kept, domesticated, overworked, denied the right to negotiate what amounts to the full product of their labor, and required, pressured, or threatened into performing labors and actions against their will.

          18. COUNTER THE RHETORIC OF SELF-OWNERSHIP: Oppose the characterization of liberty as “self-ownership”, in order to resist the perception of the human body and its efforts as things – tangible pieces of property - which can or should be owned, which gives the impression of tangibility, suggesting that the body can or should be owned.

         19. FREE ASSOCIATION & NON-DISCRIMINATION: Oppose discrimination and segregation in the public sector, and oppose discriminatory behavior in all ostensibly private firms which receive any forms of taxpayer funded subsidies and/or services, and/or are directly involved in interstate commerce. In the social sphere, and on residential properties, support the full freedom of, to, and from association.

          20. PROMOTE ACCEPTANCE & TOLERANCE: Fight reactionaryism, religiously motivated bigotry, anti-Semitism, Judeophobia, Islamophobia, chauvinism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism, ableism, lookism, Social Darwinism, cultural monism and assimilationism, and predjuice against people of every race, color, and creed. Use education to combat ignorance of sociology, human needs, intersectionality theory, institutional privileges, commonly agreed upon parental responsibilities, the stigmatization of mental disorders (especially those that keep people from working), and the stigmatization of homelessness, poverty, and welfare receipt, especially in Libertarian circles.



Written on October 30th, 2017
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

On Labor: Offering Tax Incentives to Firms to Transition Power to Workers and Consumers

     If elected to the U.S. House in 2014, I will oppose the Card Check bill, as well as the Employee Free Choice Act, and all legislation designed to empower union bosses.
     The exclusive authority to regulate organized labor occurring in the states is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The federal government should only have the exclusive authority to regulate labor which occurs in the District of Columbia and in the nation's overseas possessions, and labor in industries over which the federal government exercises duly delegated constitutional authorities to regulate. I would sponsor efforts to return the power to regulate and enforce all other areas of labor policy to the states - and to the people, the labor departments and bureaus, and the local governments within them - as soon as possible.
     I believe that all federal legislation aiming to protect the so-called rights of unions and employers alike is specific legislation affording a special privilege; the General Welfare Clause was included in the Constitution in order to prohibit legislation which does not promote the welfare of all of the people equally. Special legislation concerning unions, enterprises, business associations, and lobbyists and political action committees from both sides of the aisle has only served to empower all of these organizations to participate in the regulation and control of the people. This has resulted in diminished political power for ordinary taxpayers, diminished economic power for ordinary consumers, and a less productive economy.
     I oppose the Card Check bill and the Employee Free Choice Act not because it should be illegal or any more difficult to join or organize a union, nor easier for employers to fire people for engaging in legal union activity. I take this position because the taxpayers – as both the employers of federal workers and the consumers of the services they provide – have the responsibility to ensure that the power of organized labor does not make the delivery of such services unaffordable. Federal workers should bear in mind that they, too, are consumers and taxpayers, and therefore need affordable government just like the rest of us.
     Furthermore, I take this position in order to protect the rights of minorities; in this case, the rights of minority unions alongside those of majority unions. Gaining majority status for being the certified winner in a National Labor Relations Board election should not be the sole method of invoking bargaining obligations on the part of employers; plural and proportional representation would be legal alternatives if legislation requiring majority status were abolished.
     I believe that majority unions should have a role in such bargaining, but so should minority unions, as well as consumers and shareholders, and - in the case of labor by government employees – taxpayers. But agreements between these parties can be achieved through private arbitration (following mutual company and union agreement about which materially uninterested agency shall be deemed trustworthy to arbitrate the dispute) and liens on business properties, rather than through litigation and motivated state intervention concerning what sort of bargaining between companies and unions shall be acceptable.
     I do not support any organization that interferes with individual freedom to associate through federally protected concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, and to bargain collectively on a members-only basis. I take this position regardless of whether it is an employer or a union interfering with these freedoms, and regardless of whether there is an established majority union in the workplace.
Majority unionists should understand that their desire to be the only union in the workplace only puts all of their eggs in one basket. The federal law requiring majority status vote for a union to remain in existence only exposes unions to the risk that a future federal law could empower government to require all eligible voters to weigh in on a union election at their workplace, even if they'd rather not pick a side. I believe that compulsory union voting is one of the most significant sources of political polarization and divisiveness in America today.
     As long as majority unions are free to appeal to the federal government to either abolish minority unions or diminish their power to negotiate, the prevailing union shop / closed shop dichotomy in unionized workplaces can only serve to perpetuate an environment of monopolistic competition over the representation of labor. I oppose such uses of coercive state power to enforce unconstitutional special legislation; this is activity which should be considered in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
     Unless and until it becomes politically feasible to repeal all special federal legislation empowering unions and businesses alike, I will propose amendments to the Constitution authorizing the federal government to enjoin states against giving such illegal special privileges and monopoly representation powers to majority unions (often referred to as a “national Right to Work amendment”). I take this position because in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that nobody may legally be required to become a full member of a union as a condition of continued employment.
     Although the federal government should not be in the business of telling people in the states how to regulate labor therein, in regards to my legislative position on the federal government's jurisdiction over labor (in the District of Columbia, overseas, and in industries it was duly delegated the authority to regulate) - and in regards to my general recommendations for the states – I believe that individual freedom to choose whether to join a union can coexist alongside workers desiring solidarity in collective bargaining.
     I also believe that each government, in its respective sphere of authority to regulate labor, should provide for a more collaborative negotiation between employers and non-employers from across a wider and more diverse set of economic organizations. I would suggest that this be done by prohibiting unions (especially pro-business majority unions known as “business unions”) from making contracts with employers in a manner which does not welcome the input of ordinary people. This includes the input of not only taxpayers, shareholders, and non-shareholding but nonetheless affected “stakeholders”, but most importantly of potential employees who are all too often underinformed about their rights as a result of such contracts.
     Unconstitutionally empowering the federal government to nationalize companies and then to award controlling stakes in them to the public and/or to labor unions with majority status is not the only way to ensure that everyone gets their fair share of influence over how our society and economy are governed. There is a way to passively – rather than actively and coercively – allow ownership and management responsibilities to transition into the hands of workers and consumers.
     Moreover, there is a way to do this while promoting economic growth, without crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of the people or causing people to work past their planned retirement ages unnecessarily, and without diminishing the freedoms of individual workers and minority unions to have meaningful influence on the workplace and in the industry of their choice.
     My recommendation would involve immediately closing all tax loopholes and taxing all corporate income (including capital gains) at a flat base rate, and from there offering tax credits in order to incentivize owners and managers of firms to take steps planning and providing for the gradual transition of ownership and management of such firms to organization modes which are more hospitable to egalitarianism and a balance of workers' rights with the interests of consumers.
     Firms in the public and private sectors alike would be offered tax incentives to essentially evolve into one of any number of types of organizations. Examples of such organizations should include open shop unions; dual and minority unions; workplaces with members-only collective bargaining agreements; autonomous unions and guilds; syndicates; egalitarian labor-managed firms; cooperative corporations; consumer-driven cooperatives; worker-consumer cooperatives (i.e., mutuals); mutual aid societies; cooperative wholesale societies; and voluntary cooperatives.
     I would additionally recommend a hybrid example, combining the functions of as many of these types of organizations as possible into one firm; that is, a voluntary worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperative. Such a cooperative should coordinate the planning of purchasing as tightly as possible with other cooperatives like it, and be required to serve any customer who comes to it (on the condition that he or she does not request unjustifiable quantities of the goods and services offered).
     Although coordinating their efforts would save the most money, such cooperatives should remain technically separate organizations, function in a market system, be free to accept and give charitable donations, and be free to have differing practices regarding in which circumstances additional quantities of goods and services afforded to certain individuals above the base level are justifiable.
     The main objective of such a cadre of firms would be to provide a counterbalance against the oligopoly powers of sellers and distributors of labor and capital pertaining to the relevant goods and services produced by said firms. Such firms would accomplish this by pooling wealth in order to save costs in the purchasing and delivery of the relevant goods and services, providing for the affordable organization of production.
     This would occur under the condition of regular negotiation concerning any and all potential conflict which is likely to arise between consumers' demand for low prices and workers' demand for high compensation. A worker who consumes the very good or service which he or she produces, possesses good management skills, and has constructive suggestions concerning improving the workplace, might be asked to serve as a tie-breaking vote in any leadership or management of such a firm.
     The State of Oregon can do better on labor policy without the obstructive effects of association with the federal government. The federal government's ownership of vast tracts of land in the state inhibits (in those areas) the kind of productive labor which would allow the state to afford such a relationship, if only the state had the ability to fully tax the value of the land within it, instead of resorting to taxing the production of its own taxpayers through taxes on individual income. Whether they call the compensation they desire “all the fruits” or “the full product” of their labor, I would urge people of the left and right alike to oppose the eventual abolition of the individual income tax.







For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:


at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Is Scott Walker a Fascist?

Written on June 19th, 2012



   I read an article the other day that described Scott Walker as taking the first step towards libertarian small-government ends. Canadian liberty activist Stefan Molyneux said that even if Ron Paul or some other libertarian becomes president, since they want small government, it will inevitably involve cuts in government services, cuts in the pay and benefits of government employees, and cuts in the size of governments’ work forces. Molyneux’s point was that a libertarian taking charge of a monopoly government that stays monopolistic will appear to most people as a corporatist (fascism minus the theocracy) system.

   I’d say that the more socially tolerant the libertarian president or governor is, the less he would appear as a fascist. This is why more liberals like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson than do Scott Walker; Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – although they may be far from enthusiastically pro-choice when it comes to personal ethics, and although their abortion policy is guided by the principles of dual federalism (states’ rights) – are not actively trying to make abortion clinics dissuade people from getting abortions, unlike Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature. And since most people who oppose abortion oppose it on religious grounds, that puts the theocratic element back into corporatism, making Walker appear as nearly a fascist to most pro-choice labor rights’ advocates.

   The problem I think we’re overlooking is the problem of monopoly government. Which government controls us depends not on our choice from among a varied selection of alternatives, but on where we live. A government monopoly (on the legitimate use of power) can easily engender corporate monopoly (by threatening to use that power).

   We have a “corporate government” to an even greater extent than that to which we have a “pay-to-play” system full of corruption, corporate welfare, and wealth disparity; we have a “corporate government” because it has the potential to exist indefinitely (like corporations), and because its debt is shared by people who – through the legal-fiction paper representations of themselves – are never given the ability to resist their government, or given enough information to understand why they might have wanted to resist becoming a corporate person in their first weeks of life.

   But a monopoly government also engenders monopoly unionism. It can be very difficult to criticize the most visible problems with the labor movement without offending leftists. It took me a long time to figure out what’s to like about the labor movement and what’s not to like about it. But what appears clear to me now is that there needs to be a way for government employees to keep their jobs and benefits, for them to compete against the private sector to provide similar services, and for them to choose who is their boss (or governor, president, etc.).

   My solution – as clumsily as I might phrase it sometimes, like right now – is to simply submit to “private governance”. The founding fathers intended for the General Welfare Clause to mean that federal spending should benefit all or most people in the country. But most people in the country are very wealthy, nor are most people government employees. Those types of people want specific welfare, not general welfare.

   If Walker’s opponents would just admit that they want special benefits for union members, and if we just change things to that the current governments have to allow other governments to co-exist with them – and compete with them for citizens in the same territory – then we wouldn’t see things like the Walker controversy happening; Democrats would be governed by Democrats, Republicans would be governed by Republicans, union supporters would be governed by someone to the left of Tom Barrett, and we would be having a very different conversation.


For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Labor Protectionism

Written on June 16th, 2012
Edited in April 2014



   I'm not saying that the value of labor should be manipulated so that it loses its value here... But absent the manipulation of the value of labor so that the effort of workers gains value (I'm alluding to minimum wage laws), the going rate for entry-level labor feels like it should be about 5 or 6 bucks an hour here in America.

   ...What I am saying - however - is that that shit should be allowed to decline naturally; that is, without artificial government manipulation; that is, government controls should be removed so that the value of labor can find its real free-market rate, and our purchasing power and our balance of trade aren't all out of proportion.

   Remember... We don't have a primarily industrial- / manufacturing-based economy anymore. We're more of a service economy now. What's allegedly "backing our money" is more labor / services than it is goods / products.

   Now... I'd imagine that there are a lot of people who want to keep minimum wage laws in place, and who even desire that the minimum wage increase. I'd also imagine that a lot of those same people oppose the outsourcing of American jobs, prefer unionized to non-unionized labor, oppose Right-to-Work laws, and oppose benefit and pay cuts for government employees providing public services.

   So we're living in a primarily service-based economy where the combined government agencies confiscate 40% of the wealth and employ over 2.2 million people, and most of the debate on labor issues revolves around government jobs.



   Most of the people on the left want the government to artificially raise the value of the efforts of workers - including its own workers - who offer services rather than produce goods. They oppose both non-interventionism in the value of labor and government intervention to lower the value of labor.

   So doesn't the left want what could basically be described as a form of mercantilism or protectionism, except one that focuses on services instead of industry? Isn't this just liberals wanting America to protect the value of its economy and its money by keeping artificially inflated the value of its most valuable assets; its workers and their labor? Aren't these people more "capitalist" (specifically, state-monopoly capitalist) than are we free-marketers?


For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

For more entries on free trade, fair trade, the balance of trade, and protectionism, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-trade-agreements.html

For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Right to Work Laws and Union Security Agreement Contracts

Written on April 15th, 2012
Edited in April 2014



   "If legislation... had not created privileges for the unions, the need for special legislation concerning them would probably not have arisen... once special privileges have become part of the law of the land, they can be removed only by special legislation.

   Though there ought to be no need for special 'right-to-work laws,' it is difficult to deny that the situation created in the United States by legislation and by the decisions of the Supreme Court may make special legislation the only practicable way of restoring the principles of freedom.

   ...Such legislation... should not go beyond declaring certain contracts invalid..."

- Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek



   Over the past year, I have been inclined to criticize "compulsory-unionism" laws (the private-sector labor laws which exist in non-Right-to-Work [RTW] states, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act), even going so far as to characterize such laws as conferring government-afforded monopoly privileges to labor unions.

   However - as I have determined that I had overlooked some important details about private-sector labor laws in the course of my research, and also that I had neglected to examine the issue in the context of contract rights (which I have described as the basis of all legitimate governance) - I have recently had to re-think my stance on private-sector labor law.

   Before my recent research, I had thought that in non-RTW states, the management of all unionized workplaces within a given state is required to negotiate with the single labor union recognized by the government as having the exclusive right to represent workers in negotiation - whether or not such workers sanction and approve of that representation - and that employees in unionized workplaces who do not join unions within a given time frame can be fired.

   Essentially, I'd thought that in non-RTW states, all unionized workplaces had union-shop union security agreements (henceforth referred to as USAs).

   What actually happens in non-RTW states is that employers and labor unions are permitted to enter into contracts functioning as USAs (which include closed-shop, union-shop, agency-shop, fair-share-provision / dues-checkoff), which usually entail that one particular union has the exclusive right to represent workers within the workplace.

   (In contrast to this practice, the Industrial Workers of the World [I.W.W. / Wobblies] support dual-unionism, the practice of two unions to represent workers in negotiation with the management of the same workplace).



   Before criticizing the Hayek quote and summarizing my position, I'd like to make it clear that I am not totally reversing my stance on private-sector labor laws.

   First, I would support legislation which would prohibit the federal and state governments from mandating that all unionized workplaces within given jurisdictions make closed-shop or union-shop USAs (meaning that only union members may be employed, and that workers must join the union within a certain time-frame in order to keep their jobs, respectively). Although I don't think such mandates would be likely in the U.S., I would note that Mexico had a closed-shop mandate until about two decades ago.

   Second, I do not support any union security agreements, much less enthusiastically so. I feel that they often:
(1) act as unnecessary barriers of entry into the labor market,
(2) increase unemployment levels and the cost of living,
(3) make it less likely for new and fledgling labor unions to gain prominence, exacerbating the oligarchicalization of agencies representing workers in negotiation with management,
(4) make independent ["wildcat"] strikes less likely to occur,
(5) narrow the range of acceptable tactics for - and goals of - negotiation, and
(6) [in the case of union-shop agreements], fail to ensure that employees become aware during their job interviews of their obligation to join the union as a condition of employment within a given time-frame [which is what happened to me at one of my first jobs].



   I do not see why there should exist an agency like the National Labor Relations Board which has the authority to approve and deny unions' requests to engage in strikes. I imagine that Hayek would describe this system as a labor policy which is only practiced due to special legislation, and I would agree with that characterization.

   However, I would not put union security agreements in the same category. I believe that collective bargaining in the private sector is a right. This is not to say, though, that unions have the right to compel management to accede to their demands. What I mean is that workers' rights to collectively bargain is limited by management's willingness to entertain and give credence to claims of such rights.

   Essentially, anything goes, so long as government, unions, management, and those who support them do not - and may not - compel one another to act against their will. I would add that this notion is not fundamentally different from the private-sector labor policy which is administered in non-RTW states today.

   At least ideally, we have a contractual government (meaning that laws are contracts made between consenting agents), government honors all contracts made amongst consenting individuals, and legislation cannot impair the obligation of contracts (contracts, however,may be impaired retroactively as the result of judgments in lawsuits).

   This is why I find myself at odds with Hayek when he asserts that "legislation... declaring certain contracts invalid" is acceptable and desirable.



   In closing, the following is a summary of my policy on private-sector labor (at least, as it stands today):

   (1) Repeal the National Labor Relations Act and abolish the National Labor Relations Board. They are not necessary to uphold the right to collectively bargain (which existed prior to - and exist independently of - the current federal private-sector labor-policy system), and they diminish the role of independent, non-government-sponsored unions.

   (2) Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, invalidating state Right-to-Work laws. These laws impair the obligation of contracts, which - whether retroactively or not - are inhibitive of individual rights and the freedom of association.

   (3) Enact legislation prohibiting the federal and state governments from mandating closed-shop and union-shop union security agreements in all unionized workplaces within the given jurisdictions.

   (4) Vociferously discourage unions and management from making union security agreements in negotiation.

   (5) Encourage unions and management to practice members-only collective bargaining and open-shop agreements, in order to counter-act the free-rider problems which arise as the result of success of point (4).

   (6) Encourage dual- and multiple-unionism. Encourage unions, union members, and union supporters to tolerate competition by other unions, and encourage management to negotiate with multiple unions.


For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

On Social Corporatism and Tripartism

Written on May 27th, 2011




   Social corporatism is the political system of the day.

   It goes back at least as far as the FDR administration, and if the Strasser brothers had seen Hitler carry out
the delivery of benefits to unions which they promised, Nazi Germany would have been a National Social Corporatist country.

   Corporations extract profit from workers.
   Unions extract dues from laborer-members.
   Government extracts taxes from citizens.

   Government requires corporations to negotiate with unions.
   Unions condition laborer-members to accept a certain level of union-approved benefits from their employers.
   Unions and corporations alike lobby government for funds.

   Social corporatism thrives best when government, corporations, and unions collude to legitimize one another in private, but decry one another in public.

   Social corporatism is a way to put unions and corporations on a level playing field with one another, and this is customarily done through special favors from the government.


   I would end this practice, putting unions and corporations on a level playing field with one another by training them to seek power and wealth independent of government-provided taxpayer funds.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Response to a Question About Right to Work Legislation

Written on March 25th, 2011



Patrick Mende asked:

   “You support so-called 'right to work' legislation. How would you respond to the argument that such legislation interferes with an employer's and a union's right to freely enter into contract?”



I replied:

   “I do not believe that unions and employers should have the right to collude to require employees to join a union once an employee has already contracted to work for an employer. But I believe that if unions and employers desire to collude to require employees to join unions as a precondition to and prerequisite for employment, they should be required to provide information that applicants will be required to do so while they still have the opportunity to make the decision about whether to agree to enter into contract with their potential employer.

   “If Right-to-Work legislation interferes with the right of employers and unions to freely enter into contract with one another, it only does so in the interest of full disclosure regarding what is to be expected of the employee. I am more concerned about preserving the individual employee's right to freely enter into contract with either or both unions and employers than I am with preserving union or business rights.

   "I don’t believe that - especially in difficult economic times - an employee whom was not told he would be compelled to join a union within a given amount of time as a condition of employment should be caught off-guard and forced to choose between participating in a strike and continuing to work so he may provide for himself and his family.

   “Additionally, I dismiss the claim that Right-to-Work legislation creates a free-rider problem for employees, causing them to receive the benefits earned through union negotiation without committing to help the union strike if necessary. This is because I would argue that there is a downside to the increased benefits and improved work conditions for which unions negotiate. Increased benefits can also mean higher standards for the hiring of future employees; these benefits may make it more difficult for future employees to qualify for those increased benefits, potentially contributing to unemployment.”
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Initial Reaction to Scott Walker's Public Sector Union Reform Proposals #2: Two Weeks In

Written on February 28th, 2011



   I think it's a valid point that public-sector unions have more leverage than private-sector unions because government is more likely to have a monopoly in the provision of services than in the market.

   Getting rid of collective bargaining rights for certain types of jobs is one way to address this problem.

   Another solution, and I think, a more libertarian solution, would be to undermine the government monopolies in the provision of such services.

   The only way to solve Wisconsin's union problem without destroying the unions themselves (keeping in mind that UW faculty and state health workers would lose their collective bargaining rights) is to encourage competition in the provision of those services which are typically provided by government.

   Make it easier for children to attend private schools, use private security agents as prison guards, repeal laws making it illegal for anyone to remove trash or recycling from people's homes except government employees.

   In other words, use the free market to solve the problem. I think getting rid of certain professions' collective bargaining rights is anti-libertarian, whereas continuing to allow them to retain such rights would be libertarian.


   If you've decided that competition is the best solution to all problems, you can't give Republicans a monopoly over political economy, you have to level the playing field for all parties involved, and may the best ideology win.


To see my first reaction, visit:
For more entries on social services, public planning, and welfare, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/taxpayer-funded-benefits-for.html

For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-scott-walker-fascist.html

For more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...