February 28, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Convince me
I'm working on something about card check, which is set to pass the House tomorrow. The arguments against abolishing secret elections are fairly self-explanatory; less so the arguments in favour. Obviously, there is an instrumental argument in favour of it, if you like unions, but there is an instrumental argument in favour of killing the neighbours and taking their stuff, too. I'm looking for a more compelling justification than unions=good.
So hit me, card-check favouring readers (and fellow bloggers). Why is this a good idea?
Posted by Jane Galt at February 28, 2007 12:30 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linkscosmo, I had the same question and found this short entry at Wikipedia.
There's plenty more about "card check" on Google, but it looked like most of it was on union websites (which obviously aren't going to be a great source).
I realize that Megan is too busy right now to write a fuller discussion of the issue. I'm hoping that she has time later.
Try these papers, http://www.wfu.edu/~heckeljc/papers/abs.php. For one thing, if you think that trading votes is efficient (I do not, but there is a case for that), non-secret ballots allow that to happen more easily. Furthermore non-secret ballots might lead to more sincere and less strategic voting, in Gibbard-Sattherwhaite games. See this also: http://www.stanford.edu/~davies/secret-ballot.pdf
I'm having a very hard time finding anything positive about card check. I speak from the perspective of one who was, earlier, forced into joining a union (no right to work law at that place and time).
If you have not been caught in the middle of a union organizing campaign it is hard to imagine the amount of pressure placed on workers to 'sign the card.'
I've had tires slashed and car windows broken out; if this ill-conceived sellout becomes law the level of intimidation and violence in union organizing will surely escalate.
Funny how unions (and their democrat allies) seem to place so little value in the secret ballot.
There are no legitimate arguments for it. The entire purpose is to allow direct pressure on workers to join who would not do so otherwise. The purpose of a secret ballot is to protect every voter from coercion, to the extent possible, from one side or another.
Basically, the argument is that the current election process favors anti-union intimidation by the employer, while the card check process favors pro-union intimidation by the organizers. Given that the employer's power to intimidate is structurally far greater than the organizers' power, it seems reasonable that if you need to choose between the two, it makes sense to choose a process that provides for the lesser degree of intimidation -- the card check process. A study of perceived intimidation reported by workers who had been through each process concluded that there was less intimidation by either management or organizers in a card check process than in an NLRB election.
That's a summary -- I'm not trying to sell you the argument, just identifying it for you.
Given that the employer's power to intimidate is structurally far greater than the organizers' power, it seems reasonable that if you need to choose between the two, it makes sense to choose a process that provides for the lesser degree of intimidation -- the card check process.
Not true if the organizers are corrupt or mobbed up, which I understand has been a problem in certain unions (no, not all or most, etc.).
Lizard Breath,
However, card-check does nothing to limit the employers' power to coerce, and increases the power of unions to do so.
"Given that the employer's power to intimidate is structurally far greater than the organizers' power, it seems reasonable that if you need to choose between the two, it makes sense to choose a process that provides for the lesser degree of intimidation -- the card check process."
How does that provide a lesser degree of intimidation? It merely adds the intimidation of the union to the mix, it doesn't subtract the alleged intimidation of the employer.
The NLRB election process allows for employer intimidation because it's long, slow, and public -- it necessarily takes several months during which the employer can schedule required 'informational meetings' during which they can threaten the employees with bad consequences that will result if they organize, and during which they can identify and fire union leaders. (Which is a violation of law, of course, but it's a civil violation, and one that doesn't provide for significant penalties -- all that happens if a court finds that an employee was wrongfully fired for union activity was that they get their job back with back pay. This isn't much of a deterrent.)
This is pretty well established -- if you want I could look for some references for you, but googling 'NLRB election employer intimidation' or similar should find them easily.
(Whoops, hit post early there.)
The main advantage of card check elections is that they're much faster, giving the employer less time to react by identifying and firing union-sympathetic workers.
In my small engineering company we see both union and non-union clients (power stations). I just got letters from a Union station. It reminds contractors that they are now in contract negotiations and lets them know which gates and entrances to use in the event of a strike.
Just a small reminder about how Unions still bring violence and physical intimidation in their wake. Think about how this would be to the individual employee if everyone knew how they "voted".
All things considered it is better for a worker, better for the company, and better for society to have unions represent the workers interests. Anything that furthers this process along is a good thing.
it necessarily takes several months during which the employer can schedule required 'informational meetings' during which they can threaten the employees with bad consequences that will result if they organize...
That doesn't quite rise to the level of tire slashing for the average worker, does it?
Firing the organizers is pretty serious stuff, though.
Ken: shouldn't the workers be allowed to decide that question for themselves? And if its better for the company, why do what LizardBreath is talking about?
Unionism is so industrial age-ish. Isn't it dead yet?
Let's make a trade. I'll give you minimum wage if you give me unionism.
it necessarily takes several months during which the employer can schedule required 'informational meetings' during which they can threaten the employees with bad consequences that will result if they organize, and during which they can identify and fire union leaders.
Why *shouldn't* an employer fire someone who thinks cartelization of his labor type is better way to increase his compensation than threatening to work for a competitor?
I'm just asking, is all.
I don't see any positive arguments for card-check that couldn't be met by improving the existing secret-ballot process. If the principal case for card-check is that NLRB elections take too much time and therefore let management intimidate employees, then speed up the process if you like. But making it not-secret so that your co-workers can bully you into voting the right way (or torment you afterwards because they all know how you voted) doesn't strike me as an improvement.
That doesn't quite rise to the level of tire slashing for the average worker, does it?
Sure, but it's still intimidating, and there's a whole lot more of it. If you want to intimidate through tire slashing, you need people willing to commit crimes. If you want to intimidate through threats of bad consequences, you don't need to break any laws at all. (This isn't an argument that required informational meetings used to intimidate workers are worse than tire slashing, just that they're vastly more common, so the amount of intimidation that results is greater.)
And of course, firing union-identified workers is pretty common as well, and intimidating even to those not fired.
If you want to intimidate through threats of bad consequences, you don't need to break any laws at all.
...
And of course, firing union-identified workers is pretty common as well, and intimidating even to those not fired.
Actually, firing union-identified or union-agitating workers, while perhaps common and difficult to stop, does break laws. Even under the Taft-Hartley Act revisions, absolutely. Except for firing union-identified or union-agitating middle management, which is allowed under Taft-Hartley.
Of course, the thing about firing is that I know of only two situations:
1) Employer has immense power to fire at-will, and can find excuses for nearly anything; and
2) Employees can basically not be fired for anything, even amazing incompetence (more common at strong union shops, obviously, such as NYC schools)
Sure, I noted that firing workers for organizing was illegal above. But it's a violation of civil law, not a crime, and damages are pretty low; the deterrent effect of the law against firing workers (the company could, maybe, have to reinstate them with back pay) isn't comparable to the deterrent effect of laws against actual violence (the guilty parties could end up in prison).
LizardBreath,
Fair enough. Then simply speed up the present election process. You can do that without resorting to non-secret ballots.
Ken,
I have no problem with workers forming voluntary organizations in order to negotiate. What I object to is forcing companies to use only union labor, and forcing all the workers at a company to join the union, even if they don't wish to, and the company is still willing to employ them.
I see Michelle Dulak Thomson has already made that argument. I need to remember to read the thread to the end before spouting off.
That's easier said than done, given that the NLRB is politically appointed and not always terribly sympathetic to organizational efforts -- the election isn't going to happen any faster than the NLRB gets around to it.
Nobody has explained how management pointing out the effects that the cost of unionization will have on their employment policy is anywhere remotely like the intimdation regularly practiced by union thugs in organizing campaigns. The only people directly threatened by supposed management intimidation are union organizers, and workers way, way down on the seniority list, as they'll be the ones laid off under union rules when the costs of unionization catch up to the company.
Perhaps, we can also use "card check" to decertify a union instead of going through the present process which is even more onerous that certifying a union.
If you want to intimidate through tire slashing, you need people willing to commit crimes.
You didn't just say that, did you?
LizardBreath,
[Speeding up secret-ballot elections] is easier said than done, given that the NLRB is politically appointed and not always terribly sympathetic to organizational efforts -- the election isn't going to happen any faster than the NLRB gets around to it.
I take your point. But is it really flat-out impossible to put in place something like "card check" that wouldn't involve everyone you work with knowing how you voted?
Yancey Ward writes:
What I object to is forcing companies to use only union labor, and forcing all the workers at a company to join the union, even if they don't wish to, and the company is still willing to employ them.
You will note that you don't find Coke and Pepsi at McDonalds. Do you object to Coke seeking an exclusive dealing contract from McDonalds, even though other soft drink makers also really want to sell their products to McDonalds? If not, why can't a union negotiate a "union shop" contract with an employer?
Anthony writes:
Nobody has explained how management pointing out the effects that the cost of unionization will have on their employment policy is anywhere remotely like the intimdation regularly practiced by union thugs in organizing campaigns.
Nobody has explained how not getting a Christmas card from the co-worker whose request to sign a union card you refused is anything remotely like being immediately fired by an employer for being suspected of supporting unionization.
I have two comments:
1: If you believe companies are intimidating by firing union organizers in the run-up to the secret ballot, why don't you believe they would do just that during the card check signature gathering process?
2: OK, let's stipulate that company intimidation reaches a fever pitch in the interval after the cards are filed with the NLRB but before the election. Let's further stipulate it would be a good idea to shorten this interval. Let's even further stipulate that it is a rather cumbersome process to validate the cards or whatever and that that's why it takes time to run the election under the current system.
I propose that the law be changed so that the NLRB will swoop in and run the election a short time after the union claims to have enough cards. If the election is held and it turns out after the fact that the union was not entitled to an election there would be a penalty. The penalty should probably be monetary to prevent gaming the system by having the company create a phony union just to trigger a penalty [which might otherwise be that they couldn't run an election for a period of time]. I'm trying to decide whether to say that no union is certified if the election is held on the union's say-so but the union didn't have adequate cards, even if the union wins the election. I don't like thwarting the will of the majority in this manner, but the union shouldn't be allowed to profit from violating the rules.
-dk
The proprietress writes:
So hit me, card-check favouring readers (and fellow bloggers). Why is this a good idea?
Appealing to your libertarian side:
The basic argument against card check is that if you allow unions to organize without an elaborate federal-government supervised process, workers who support unionizing their workplace cannot be trusted not to resort to rampant criminality which law enforcement can't possibly hold in check. If this is your view of American society, how could you possibly be opposed to gun control far more restrictive than currently exists in any state of the union?
Nobody has explained how not getting a Christmas card from the co-worker whose request to sign a union card you refused is anything remotely like being immediately fired by an employer for being suspected of supporting unionization.
It's not about christmas cards.
I've had my tires slashed. True, they were bicycle tires, but tires are tires.
I was working for a small software contractor who was writing a piece of software for a company who was having a problem with a union. The company asked us to do the work of those who were honoring the picket line instead of our usual work [which had nothing to do with the hourly labor's work]. We refused. The union asked us to not work on our contract during the dispute. We refused that request too, and we just came in every day and did our normal, contracted, software development work.
Those who drove cars to the site had their vehicles' hoods pounded on and scratched. I don't know if any of them had their tires slashed; they would have been hard to identify in the parking lot [as opposed to cars driven by employees of other business units not involved in the dispute]. I was the only software contracter who biked to work regularly [this was in New Jersey in February or March, but I'm hard-core] so my vehicle was easy to identify. I thought I was getting a free ride because I didn't have to run the gauntlet which would have been truly intimidating on a bike but I could carry my bike through and over the shrubbery surrounding the parking lot. I was wrong. Intimidation is physical and real, when a union wants to convince an individual person to do something.
-dk
http://edworkforce.house.gov/testimony/020807JenniferJasontestimony.pdf makes interesting reading.
-dk
alkali: Your attempt to cast opposition to card check as non-libertarian is ill-founded.
Anyone can already form a union without anyone's permission. Anyone can already strike without anyone's permission.
All legislation regarding unions pertains to governmnet-recognized unions. Once a union is recognized by the government, *then* it can use labor laws to force employers to negotiate with them beyond what they could get out of threatening to work for the competition (i.e., market forces). Also, then more employment rules (e.g. about not firing union members for being in a union) attach.
From that perspective, the libertarian position is that government should not grant this protection to any union, and any restriction on it granting this protection is good.
Of course libertarians don't object to workers forming a union, but then, they don't object either to employers firing anyone just for this.
Jane - whatever your analysis it must recognize that Section 7 of the NLRA explicitly grants
"[e]mployees ... the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations ...and [employees] shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities...." IOW the cornerstone of the law is employee choice - not interest group convenience - and the method from the start for ascertaining that choice, whether representation or decertification, has been an employee election. I agree with the poster above, if the law is changed to a quick unchallenged card check for initial representation then that exact same process should also apply for decertification (which currently is a much more difficult with the Union able to halt a decert for years simply by filing unfounded charges with the NLRB).
The study that LB cites (not saying she supports it) is making the pro-card check blog rounds but in fact it suffers from quite a bit: the survey methodology, questions, etc. is apparently not publicly available, the data set is small (430 employees total to establish a comparison of two different events), and the group sponsoring the study is rabidly pro-Union. Furthermore, coercion has a strict definition under the law which I'm willing to bet wasn't clarified for the survey participants. As anyone who has ever done any workplace law can tell you, coercion (or harassment or discrimination) tends to be understood by the layman as 'something my company did that I don't like' and many employees, regardless of their pro or anti union sentiment, become disgruntled during a campaign with mandatory company meetings as well as both sides' handouts and approaches, etc. So they'll answer yes to 'were you coerced?' because it sounds about right not because they're trying to establish the qualification of an event under a legal definition which is, of course, the very purpose of this survey. Finally, current card checks should suffer from less of this ill defined coercion as companies now willing to engage in card check recognition have usually waived some or all of their right to campaign against the Union and so the stuff that causes the employee disgruntlement simply doesn't occur.
alkali wrote: "You will note that you don't find Coke and Pepsi at McDonalds. Do you object to Coke seeking an exclusive dealing contract from McDonalds, even though other soft drink makers also really want to sell their products to McDonalds? If not, why can't a union negotiate a "union shop" contract with an employer?"
My response: You clearly did not understand my position. I have absolutely no problem with union shops as long as it isn't coerced by law. For example, McDonalds deals exclusively with Coke, but they do so voluntarily, not because Coke went to Congress and got a law passed requring it.
You are whacking away at strawmen.
Yancey,
I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "right to work."
In "right to work" states, the state steps in and bans employers from negotiating union security agreements with employees, even if that employer fully wanted to negotiate such an agreement with its workers.
The state coercion occurs in "right to work" states. Again: Even if an employer and its employees' union mutually decide to negotiate a contract that includes a requirement that every employee pay their fair share to maintain to the workers' organization, they are legally restrained by the state from making that private agreement between each other.
This is the dirty little secret of "right to work" -- it's rabidly supported by libertarians, but it's about using state power to block private organizations from negotiating certain contract terms, even if they want to. The state is putting its finger on the scale to weaken employees' freedom to act through an independent organization.
The basic argument against card check is that if you allow unions to organize without an elaborate federal-government supervised process, workers who support unionizing their workplace cannot be trusted not to resort to rampant criminality which law enforcement can't possibly hold in check. If this is your view of American society, how could you possibly be opposed to gun control far more restrictive than currently exists in any state of the union?1) It's not that law enforcement couldn't hold unions in check - it's that law enforcement isn't allowed to. Unions long ago got exceptions for themselves written into the laws concerning organized crime.
2) Gun control doesn't reduce crime, it enables it. Criminals will carry guns if they need them, regardless of the law. Criminals also like to run in gangs and pick weak-appearing victims - something that works much better when you can be sure that the law-abiding little old lady you are about to gang up on isn't carrying a pistol.
Mark M --
It's is sort of sad how ignorant conservatives are about working people wand their unions.
Unions are not exempt from "laws concerning organized crime."
The obvious example is the Teamsters. In 1989, the federal government was about to indict the national leadership of the union -- who even prounion folks like myself agree were hideously corrupt and mobbed up (they endorsed Nixon, Reagan and HW Bush, after all!) -- under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This was the law that the feds have used to cripple the old Mafia families during the past two decades.
Knowing that they would go to jail, the union leadership cut a deal and entered into a consent agreement that required them to relinquish power, allow a federal Independent Review Board to monitor the union and set up federally supervised elections for Teamster leaders. Hundreds of Teamsters were expelled from the union for associating with La Cosa Nostra. The union remains under the consent agreement today.
Brendan_Sexton: See my previous post. The misunderstanding is on your part. Any regulation specifying what a union can do, refers to government-recognized unions, to which certain government protections attach. Nothing prevents a group of workers from convincing an employer not to hire except on certain conditions, in exchange for something. It's just that such agreements, absent government pro-union intervention, are mind-numbingly stupid to enter.
Brendan Sexton,
You are incorrect. I understand right-to-work laws, and I agree, they do infringe on employers' rights to free contract, and as such, I oppose them as well (see what I wrote earlier if you don't believe me- I wrote that it is improper to force a worker to join the union if he does not want to, and the employer still wants to employ him.
However, you imply that the coercion is solely in right-to-work states. This is laughably and demonstrably wrong. Or do you wish to clarify what you wrote?
Person: The government confers a number of rights and legal reconition on corporations as well. This pro-corporation government intervention was balanced by other state interventions (especially the National Labor Relations Act) which conferred legal standing to organizations created by workers.
"Right to work" is the use of state power by private interests to push the pendulum government intervention back in the pro-corporate direction. From the standpoint of where that pendulum stood in 1948, "right to work" limited the freedom of workers to join together and negotiate agreements with corporations.
I get your point that in a libertarian fantasyland anyone could negotiate anything with anyone. But back in the real world, most Americans recognized that workers didn't have the same sort of power as corporations. So certain rights were provided to workers to allow them to form organizations as a counterbalance to that stronger corporate power.
I just think it's more interesting to argue about the political realities of how workers and corporations in the US have attempted to expand their power. If I had your politics, I guess I could see the allure of insisting that we argue based on what libertarians say is the politically correct vision of a purely free market. But to me, those arguments take on a kind of "could Superman beat up Batman?" character.
I tried not to let myself get worked up by this, but it's impossible.
Brendan Sexton has appropriate initials, since his argument has a certain aroma of cow feces to it. In Right to Work states employers are free to hire non-union workers and/or union workers, according to their own desires and employees are free to join an existing union, try to organize a union, or not join or organize a union according to their own desires. In non-right to work states, employers are compelled to only employee union workers once a union is organized and employees are compelled to join a union in order to get a job.
As for Lizard Breath, trying to cite americanrightsatwork.org as an objective source of data on intimidation during union organizing drives is like citing Fox News as an objective critique of the Bush White House.
For a possibly less biased (or at least a counterweight to the labor bias) read the congressional testimony of a former UNITE card check organizer at http://edworkforce.house.gov/testimony/020807JenniferJasontestimony.pdf
I'm all for workers organizing themselves into groups to negotiate better compensation and working conditions...so long as each worker is free to negotiate as part of the group or individually according to their own desires and as long as the employer is free to tell the organized group to go to hell if they make unreasonable demands.
Yancey: Again, I think you're getting some facts wrong. Congress did not pass a law requiring union shops in non "right to work" states. But it gave workers and employers the freedom to negotiate union security agreements if they wanted to. There are plenty of workplaces in non "right to work" states where employees, for whatever reason, have not negotiated union security agreements.
I hear a lot of grousing from conservatives and libertarians whenever union workers advocate for some sort of change at their jobs. "They should get a job somewhere else" they say. "Nobody forced them to work there!" Well, yes, but they're choosing to stay and advocate for a change. Workers are free to do this.
Indeed, nobody forces anyone to work in a union shop. If I show up at say, UPS, and ask for a job driving a package car, I'm informed that the company has negotiated a contract with its employees. That contract requires workers to wear brown uniforms. It also requires* workers to either pay dues or fair share fees to the workers' organization.
If I say, "I hate brown. I demand that I get to wear a blue uniform, regardless of the terms of employment negotiated between the employer and the workers," a conservative or libertarian would tell me that nobody's forcing me to work there and to get a job somewhere else.
But if I say, "I hate unions. I demand all the benefits of the contract but I demand that I don't have to pay anything to maintain the employees' organization, regardless of the terms of employment negotiated between the employer and workers," a conservative or libertarian would tell me that suddenly it is unjust for employers and workers to negotiate those terms and I should have the right to demand whatever I want on this issue only.
If I don't like brown, UPS probably isn't the place for me. And if I don't like unions, I'm free to decide that UPS isn't the place for me, either. Nobody's forcing me to work there.
*The exeption, of course, is where the state has intervened and banned employers from negotiating fair share agreements with employee organizations.
Brandon_Sexton: The government confers a number of rights and legal reconition on corporations as well.
Which right? The right to be sued for liability beyond what would accrue to an individual? The right to be taxed at a higher rate?
This pro-corporation government intervention was balanced by other state interventions (especially the National Labor Relations Act) which conferred legal standing to organizations created by workers.
Corporations do not have any kind of legal power analagous to that of a union to "force others to negotiate with them". The analog would be a right to force people to work for them, which believe it or not, corporations don't have.
"Right to work" is the use of state power by private interests to push the pendulum government intervention back in the pro-corporate direction.
No. It is an attempt to remove a legal power unions shouldn't have. No one thinks that corporations should have the power to make people work for them.
From the standpoint of where that pendulum stood in 1948, "right to work" limited the freedom of workers to join together and negotiate agreements with corporations.
They have always and everywhere had that right.
I get your point that in a libertarian fantasyland anyone could negotiate anything with anyone. But back in the real world,
That part *is* the real world. You *can* currently negotiate the concessions you're referring to, with anyone. You're (deliberately?) confusing "inability to extract a concession through negotiation" with "being deficient in equal rights".
most Americans recognized that workers didn't have the same sort of power as corporations. So certain rights were provided to workers to allow them to form organizations as a counterbalance to that stronger corporate power.
What power are you talking about? Market power? So unions lacked sufficient bargaining chips to get higher compensation? (They also used what bargaining chips they had, to get paygo pensions, but that's for another day.) Boo hoo. I lack sufficient market power to secure business loans at 6%. I lack sufficient market power to secure a wage of $2 million/year.
What power, specifically, did corporations have that was unfair? "Having all that money?" Don't make me laugh.
If I had your politics, I guess I could see the allure of insisting that we argue based on what libertarians say is the politically correct vision of a purely free market. But to me, those arguments take on a kind of "could Superman beat up Batman?" character.
Yeah, that's it: free market supporters care about political correctness and resemble comic book (sorry, "graphic novel") debates. Give up.
GDM: I'm afraid you've misidentified the source of BS. (And congrats on the clever insult -- haven't heard that one since 9th grade!)
As I pointed out above, it is just not true that "employers are compelled to only employ union workers once a union is organized and employees are compelled to join a union in order to get a job."
Again, there are many examples of workplaces in non-rtw states where union members have NOT negotiated a union security agreement. The difference between a "right to work" state and a non-rtw state is in non-rtw states employers and union members have the freedom to negotiate such agreements if they choose to.
This bit from the George Will piece Yancey Ward links above was interesting:
Tellingly, the act would forbid employers from trying to influence — pressure? — employees by improving their lot: It would fine employers that, to reduce the incentive to unionize, give workers "unilateral" — not negotiated — improvements in compensation or working conditions during attempts at unionization.
I mean, I can understand union organizers being pissed off at employers for placating their workers with some concessions when unionization would likely produce more and bigger concessions later on. But legal penalties for employers who make unnegotiated improvements in working conditions? Does the bill really say that? Wow.
MDT - that's long standing labor law, an employer cannot alter the "terms and conditions of employment" - wages, benefits, perks etc. - during the course of a union campaign. IOW employees cannot leverage the threat of a union to get more from their employer. Not sure if it's in the current bill but, if it is, Will's description makes it sound redundant. It is one of the parts of labor law that causes people to wonder whether it's an employee protection law or a union assistance law.
BS: "The difference between a "right to work" state and a non-rtw state is in non-rtw states employers and union members have the freedom to negotiate [union security] agreements if they choose to."
No, I'm sorry that's not right. I live in New York City; NY is not a right to work state. I used to work for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Group. Through a quirk of history, white collar people with MBAs and/or CFAs doing equity research were "represented" by the Newspaper Guild, part of the Communication Workers of America. We were this compelled to make a choice: either give the union 1% of your salary (union dues minus political spending, aka agency fees, which you had to battle the union to receive) or give them 1.5% (union dues).
So your "security agreement" enabled me to only be robbed of 2/3 of what the union really wanted to steal from me. Thanks. So much better than a situation where I would have had an honest choice to either join the union and be represented by them or not join the union and be responsible for negotiating my own salary, working conditions, bonus, etc.
And that's the rub -- unions, in my experience, tend to be supported by 2 types of people: (1) those who are afraid they aren't competent enough to get what they want based on the quality of their work and (2) those who know they aren't.
Brendan Sexton,
So that is how it is going to be? You are going to simply assume my arguments for me without actually reading which ones I make?
One last time:
I think workers should be free to organize themselves into unions. I think employers should be free to negotiate with whomever they wish, and hire whomever they wish. I don't think the state should should require negotiation between any two parties, nor should it ban agreements between any two parties. If an employer wishes to become a union shop, and the union agrees, then any workers who do not wish to be union members are free to be fired or quit. In states that force employers to keeps such workers, I think that is wrong, as I have stated twice now. However, I also believe it wrong for the state to use coercion to force companies to become union shops against their will.
Now, I have read your arguments, and if I understand them, you seem to have no problem with states forcing unionization onto unwilling employers, and seem to have no problem forcing workers to join unions simply to keep their present employment, even when the employer is willing to keep them. Do I have it about right?
Person: Actually, I'm talking about financial, political, and state power.
In the state and political spheres, before the reforms of the 1930s, corporate influence over state, local and federal government had grown quite strong. As a result, courts routinely issued injunctions against workers if they tried to join together to advocate for even the smallest changes. Courts tossed out modest efforts to provide protections for children working in mines and factories. The state repeatedly sent National Guardsmen, federal troops, and police to repress workers who were demonstrating or striking. Workers' legal rights were also severely circumsribed (example: the ridiculously slipshod "trial" of the union leaders after the Haymarket incident in Chicago in 1886.)
The reforms of the 1930s were a response to all of this. They were attempt to acknowledge that in the real existing world corporations used their considerable financial and political power to influence the state to limit workers' freedom to advocate for changes in any meaningful way. During the early 20th century, some reforms were made. And during the 1930s, most Americans lost faith in the wisdom of the American business community during the Depression and they elected leaders who favored streghtening workers freedom to join together, and those reforms were put into place. The effort to push through "right to work" was an effort by corporations to reassert their influence and reestablish limits on American workers' freedom.
(Anyone who thinks that, say, John D Rockefeller had no more actual political power than his lowest-paid worker is probably not ready for the rigor of a Superman vs. Batman debate, either.)
The difference between a "right to work" state and a non-rtw state is in non-rtw states employers and union members have the freedom to negotiate such agreements if they choose to.
No, here's the real difference: in Closed Shop states the individual worker is forced to join a union to get a job at a closed shop. In Right-To-Work states unions still operate, they just can't force individual workers to support them.
You see the difference? In one type of state the Union is accorded rights (really privileges), in the other, it's the worker.
Yancey: Today, there is NO SUCH THING as the state coercing employers to accept a union security agreement. These are agreements negotiated between two private entities: an employer and its employees' union. If an employer does not want to negotiate a union security agreement, it can decide not to, even in in non-RTW states. I know people who work places where this is the situation, today, March 1, 2007: a unionized employer in a non-RTW state with NO union shop requirement. I'm having a hard time understanding why you keep thundering on about state coercion of employers when I've pointed out that this doesn't actually exist.
GDM: The state did not impose the union security agreement on you. At some point, the members of the the Newspaper Guild at S&P voted to negotiate a contract that included this agreement and voted to approve that contract. If you and some of your co-workers decided that you no longer wanted that as part of the contract, you were free to talk to other union members about removing that in the next renegotiation and to persuade your bargaining committee to call for it to be removed. S&P was free to agree if wanted to. The state certainly would not stop you and other Guild members from negotiating to get rid of that part of the contract if you decided that's what you wanted.
Antiunion people, in my experience, tend to be the kind of people who think that making caca jokes about somebody's name is an effective way to score points in a debate.
Brandon_Sexton:
Person: Actually, I'm talking about financial, political, and state power.
No, you haven't shown any way of distinguishing "This worker is poorly paid because a marginal unit of his labor is low-valued" from "This worker is poorly paid because of a violation of his equal rights".
In the state and political spheres, before the reforms of the 1930s, corporate influence over state, local and federal government had grown quite strong.
Okay, let me see if your examples reveal evidence of this:
As a result, courts routinely issued injunctions against workers if they tried to join together to advocate for even the smallest changes.
No, workers were fired when they did this and courts issued injuctions to keep them from harassing the employer now that they were no longer employees.
Courts tossed out modest efforts to provide protections for children working in mines and factories.
Employers didn't want to hire children except on those terms. The "modest efforts" were attempts to force them to hire on terms that would make them unprofitable. By the way, you ever notice that child labor *inside* the household -- you know, the kind less attractive than these jobs -- is always exempt from child labor laws?
The state repeatedly sent National Guardsmen, federal troops, and police to repress workers who were demonstrating or striking.
You mean like how Oedipus wanted to marry Jocaste, not his mother?
The National Guardsmen, federal troops, and police were sent to "repress" *trespassers*. The crime was trespassing, not demonstrating or striking. Again, you could *always* strike simply by not showing up, and that right was never violated. Never did they dispact police to take workers to their jobs and chain them there. Then, you would have a case.
Now, remind me who *you* would call if some migrant landscaper camps in your bedroom until you "negotiate" with him for a "fair" wage for labor you don't want?
Workers' legal rights were also severely circumsribed (example: the ridiculously slipshod "trial" of the union leaders after the Haymarket incident in Chicago in 1886.)
I agree that it was a sham trial, but that had little to do with "circumscribing" workers' "rights", and everything to do with a public out for blood against cop-killers, irrespective of the evidence. Sham trials are typical whenever the public wants to see that *somebody* is punished for a horrible crime.
So no, none of those examples seems to support your claim that there was manipulation of the legal system -- this was enforcement of prohibition on trespassing, which is not specifically the pet issue of the rich.
Now, if you want to admit that your complaint is more about the "evil institution of Property", go ahead, but please don't maintain the pretense that it's simply a right-of-association issue.
They were attempt to acknowledge that in the real existing world corporations used their considerable financial and political power to influence the state to limit workers' freedom to advocate for changes in any meaningful way.
Even if true, that apparently means they had power sufficient to pass their own reforms against this influence. So why not use it to remove the supposedly unjust powers rather than add a new wrong to attack the old?
The effort to push through "right to work" was an effort by corporations to reassert their influence and reestablish limits on American workers' freedom.
You consider prohibition against trespassing into a private workplace to be a "limit on workers' freedom"?
(Anyone who thinks that, say, John D Rockefeller had no more actual political power than his lowest-paid worker is probably not ready for the rigor of a Superman vs. Batman debate, either.)
Remind me where I claimed something like this.
Christina: See my posts above, but, again, you are joining Yancey and GDM in being just wrong on the facts on this issue. I guess it's not a shocker that conservatives/libertarians are woefully uninformed about how unions actually work, but please reread my 1:16 pm post.
Again, I know people today, March 1, 2007 who work at an employer where the workers have organized a union in a non-RTW state and have a contract with NO union shop requirement. This is legal under the National Labor Relations Act. Employers are NOT required to hire only union members when workers choose to organize a union in non-RTW states.
scouser,
Thanks for the info. I had no idea.
Not sure if it's in the current bill but, if it is, Will's description makes it sound redundant. It is one of the parts of labor law that causes people to wonder whether it's an employee protection law or a union assistance law.
Well, Will's next sentence was
Clearly, the act aims less to help workers than to herd them as dues-payers into unions.
I think he's beyond the wondering stage. But I'm surprised that he didn't mention that this is existing law.
Brendan,
Where did I ever write that that was the state of the law. I was only outlining what my principles were in regards to unionization, not the state of the law. Now, I may have been making a mistake in assuming that you wanted closed/union shops as a requirement in unionization to be enforced by labor law, but that is because it is a frequent desire of those with whom I debate the topic. They also frequently refer to the free-rider problem and paying a "fair share" of representation. If I was mistaken, I apologize. Again, I have no problem with such shops if they are voluntary agreements between unions and employers, and I understand that federal and state laws have outlawed such voluntary agreements.
Share with us your principles. You could start by answering the following questions:
Do you support forced negotiations between unions and employers. For example, the workers at a WalMart decide to form a union and goes on strike, and WalMart fires all of them and hires new workers. Do you have a problem with this? What do you think the law should be?
I own a grocery store. My employees form a union and go on strike. Instead of negotiating, I fire them all and replace them. Do you have a problem with this? What do you think the law should be?
Also, you could address the issue of card check and the abolishment of secret ballots in union elections.
Brandon_Sexton: Conservatives and libertarians may not completely understand all the technicalities of union-related terminology, but pro-unionists definitely don't understand how markets work *at all*. For one thing, threatening current and future clients with harassment, trespassing, libel, and unreliability is not a good way to raise the fees you can charge.
Person: You claim that the courts and the federal government didn't act to restrain anyone's right to strike, only to prevent "trespass." This just isn't true. For example: in 1894 the federal courts issued an injunction against leaders of a union of railroad workers who refused to handle Pullman brand railroad cars to support Pullman assembly workers who were already on strike. In a sense, they were committing an act of anti-trespass by declining to handle Pullman cars. Withholding one's skills or work -- as the railway workers chose to -- is the definition of a strike. Yet the the federal government sent the US Army to force the union members back to work even when they weren't trespassing on anything. Is this not an example of the state restraining workers' right to strike?
The Haymarket defendants presented very compelling evidence that the "cop killers" were other cops: the police started shooting wildly after a bomb was thrown, probably by a fringe unionist who most of the defendants didn't even know. If you read the history of the trial, it's clear that the concept of unionism was on trial as much as any single person. Understandly, seeing union leaders get executed on nonexistent evidence had a chilling effect and discouraged workers from getting involved in other union efforts for some time.
I invoked Rockefeller to make the point that despite libertarians' claims that in a free market workers and executives and everyone else are free to negotiate whatever they want, whenever they want, in the real world people like JDR and Andrew Carnegie enjoyed considerably more influence over government and politics than the average person. Giving workers the freedom to form counterbalancing organizations was a sensible reform, even if it offends market purism that thinks that child labor is perfectly fine as long as it's profitable.
Brendan_Sexton:
Re: Pullman strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_strike
"During the major economic downturn of the early 1890s, the Pullman Palace Car Company cut wages, but, inexplicably, the corporation that operated the town of Pullman didn't decrease rents. Discontented workers joined the American Railway Union (ARU), led by Eugene V. Debs, which supported their strike by launching a boycott of all Pullman cars. It is likely that paternalism, as practiced in the town, also contributed to the workers’ unrest and subsequent strike. [2]The strike effectively shut down production in the Pullman factories and led to a lockout. Many supply routes were cut off for everyone when railroad workers across the nation striking in sympathy strike blocked Pullman cars (and subsequently Wagner Palace cars) from moving.
On July 5, in an act of arson that may or may not have been related to the strike, the buildings of the World's Columbian Exposition around the Court of Honor were torched. Buildings caught in the blaze included the administration hall, the manufacturer's hall, the electricity hall, the machinery hall, the mining hall, the agricultural hall, and the fair's train station. This increased national attention to the matter and fueled the demand for federal action.
The strike was broken up by United States Marshals and some 2,000 United States Army troops, commanded by Nelson Miles, sent in by President Grover Cleveland on the premise that the strike interfered with the delivery of U.S. Mail. During the course of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded. An estimated 6,000 rail workers did $340,000 worth of property damage, and Debs was tried for, and found guilty of, interfering with the mail. He was sent to prison for six months."
Which part of that supports your claim? Or was the literal enslavement of workers somehow left out as insignificant?
If you read the history of the trial, it's clear that the concept of unionism was on trial as much as any single person.
It's clear that for you, the "concept of unionism" is equating "right to trespass and harass" with "right to form an association.
And again, when someone dies horribly in a pro-X demonstration, where X is any cause whatsoever, X will take the blame. It's illogical but hardly a sign that the legal system was already stacked against X. You're seeing conspiracies where there are none.
I invoked Rockefeller to make the point that despite libertarians' claims that in a free market workers and executives and everyone else are free to negotiate whatever they want,
Again, you're failing to see the difference between "being free to negotiate" and "having a chance at getting negotiations to go as you want". I am free to negotiate for higher pay; others are free to tell me to bugger off. The fact that I didn't get what I wanted does not by itself show that someone has some unjustifiable power over me. (I don't even like to use the term "power" because it's vague.)
in the real world people like JDR and Andrew Carnegie enjoyed considerably more influence over government and politics than the average person
To the extent that this is true, it's a reason to limit the ability of all people to influence the legal system, i.e., the libertarian program.
Giving workers the freedom to form counterbalancing organizations was a sensible reform
Except that workers have always had this freedom.
even if it offends market purism that thinks that child labor is perfectly fine as long as it's profitable.
So-called "market purists" are, unlike some others, smart enough to ask, who precisely is to blame? The employer, or Mommy and Daddy who can't offer a competitive benefits package?
Person:
I hardly think that this is a case of correcting "technicalities of union-related terminology." One commenter actually thought that unions were exempt from organized crime laws. Others really think that the state enforces union security agreements. I hear myths like this repeated as fact by conservatives/libertarians all the time.
Regarding the 1894 railroad strike, property was not destroyed until the state intervened to enforce a legally dubious court injunction. US Army soldiers were ordered to violently put down a strike by American citizens. When the citizens were attacked, they fought back and they broke things. This was regrettable.
But according to the Wikipedia you've cited, 13 workers were killed by the state, and 57 wounded. No soldiers were killed, nor were any railroad executives or civilians. And yet I think you find the $940,000 in property damage far more distressing than the deaths of American citizens at the hands of their own country's army.
The decision by the state to send armed force to kill citizens who were on strike is the ultimate in example of government intervention in citizens' lives. Yet libertarians seem to only get concerned about overeach of state power when corporate property is at stake.
Brendan Sexton,
One commenter actually thought that unions were exempt from organized crime laws.
I think that was probably a reference to anti-price-fixing laws, which IIRC exempt organized labor. True?
MDT: The commenter stated that "unions long ago got exceptions for themselves written into the laws concerning organized crime." I do believe that courts have ruled that unions are not covered by some antitrust laws that corporations have argued should apply to them, but I don't much about that. I have heard the attidudes stated by the commenter above by a number of conservatives. Perhaps this is conflated from the kernal of truth you've noted, but I'm not sure what its origin is.
Brendan,
You never answered my questions.
Share with us your principles. You could start by answering the following questions:
Do you support forced negotiations between unions and employers. For example, the workers at a WalMart decide to form a union and goes on strike, and WalMart fires all of them and hires new workers. Do you have a problem with this? What do you think the law should be?
I own a grocery store. My employees form a union and go on strike. Instead of negotiating, I fire them all and replace them. Do you have a problem with this? What do you think the law should be?
Many supply routes were cut off for everyone when railroad workers across the nation striking in sympathy strike blocked Pullman cars (and subsequently Wagner Palace cars) from moving.
Strike? Or tresspassing? How do you suppose they were "blocking" those cars?
What's with this so-called "right to strike" anyway? If "strike" means "lay down your tools and walk away," that's well within anyone's rights (provided he doesn't have a contract to do otherwise). If "srike" means "physically prevent other people from working," that's not within anyone's rights, ever.
Jeebus, Yancey, I'm not under on the stand here.
Yes, I think that working people should have the freedom to form their own organization and that their employer should be legally compelled to negotiate with that organization once it is formed, and to bargain in good faith with its employees' organization.
If workers at Wal-Mart or Yancey Grocery were to go on strike, I think it would be stupid for Wal-Mart or Yancey to fire all of its employees en masse and attempt to replace them with other workers. It would send a signal that it doesn't care about the commitment that Wal-Mart/Yancey workers have shown before, or the hard work they've put in helping grow the enterprise. And service would plummet if you attempted to get rid of all of your workers at once.
I don't think that you should be permitted to lock out your workers, fire them all, and then claim that the union doesn't exist anymore because there are now new workers. This was a common corporate tactic during before the reforms of the 1930s.
Indeed, this is the origin of the union security agreement. Previously, employers would fire union members over a period of time and hire only non-members. Once the tipping point was reached, the employer would proclaim that a majority of the workers were now non-union and therefore it was revoking recognition of the employees' organization and refusing to negotiate on any issues in the future. By requiring new hires to join the union, union members maintained the security of the existance of their organzation.
Rob: Railroad work was skilled work and the workers blocked the cars from moving by refusing to excerise their skills. When the employer said, "Hey, attach those Pullman cars to that train" the guys who knew how to do that said, "No."
The railroads couldn't find enough workers out on the street who knew how to do the work to replace the strikers, so they went to the federal government to get a court injunction to stop the workers from withholding their skills, and then sent troops to force the workers back to their jobs at gunpoint.
Yes, that's right: instead allowing the market to work its magic by allowing the workers to use the collective bargaining power, they flexed their political muscle and persuaded the federal government to intervene on their behalf by forcing the workers to start using those skills again. It's sort of like how the "free market" convervatives gained control of the federal government from 2001-2007 and instead of rolling back government they expanded it to enrich themselves through crony capitalism.
Brendan,
I am just trying to understand your position.
Why must I negotiate at all? What is the justification for coercing me into negotiations that I do not wish to engage in? It is irrelevant whether my refusal makes economic sense or not, but why deny me this right to do with my property as I wish?
Indeed, how do you even define what "good-faith negotiations" even means? What if I state a position and refuse to budge from it one iota. Does that mean I am not bargaining in good faith? How long must I negotiate until I am allowed to make other arrangements for my business?
This is why I believe it improper for the state to be involved whatsoever- it leads to injustice one way or another, and violates someone's property rights.
Jeebus, Yancey, I'm not under on the stand here.
Yes, I think that working landscapers should have the freedom to form their own organization and that Brendan_Sexton should be legally compelled to negotiate with that organization once it is formed, and to bargain in good faith with the landscapers'organization.
If landscapers on Brendan_Sexton's yard were to go on strike [by camping on Brendan_Sexton's lawn], I think it would be stupid for Brendan_Sexton to fire all its landscapers and attempt to replace them with other workers. It would send a signal that it doesn't care about the commitment that the landscapers have shown before, or the hard work they've put in helping to maintain the yard. And landscaping quality would plummet if you attempted to get rid of all of your workers at once.
I don't think that you should be permitted to prevent the landscapers from coming on your property, firing them, and then claiming that their job doesn't exist anymore because there is now a new team. This was a common farmer tactic during time immemorial.
Indeed, this is the origin of the union security agreement. Previously, employers would fire union members over a period of time and hire only non-members. Once the tipping point was reached, the employer would proclaim that a majority of the workers were now non-union and therefore it was revoking recognition of the employees' organization and refusing to negotiate on any issues in the future. By requiring new hires to join the union, union members maintained the security of the existance of their organzation.
****
Brendan_Sexton, please recognize now that what you want goes far beyond the implications of free association.
Brendan_Sexton:I hardly think that this is a case of correcting "technicalities of union-related terminology."
That was a small aside and nothing to do with the rest of the points I made.
Regarding the 1894 railroad strike, property was not destroyed until the state intervened to enforce a legally dubious court injunction.
The injunction was issued because workers were impeding the operations of the business.
US Army soldiers were ordered to violently put down a strike by American citizens.
LOL! Still having trouble with the Jocaste/Oedipus's mother thing, eh? What you just said is like saying, "The US military has spent milllions trying to capture Osama bin Laden, a U.S. foreign policy critic."
The strike qua strike was not the reason the US Army was dispatched. It was because they were actively harassing and impeding the operations of the railroad. Again, you can already strike to your heart's content and have always been able to strike to your heart's content, simply by not showing up. No one objects to that.
But according to the Wikipedia you've cited, 13 workers were killed by the state, and 57 wounded.
Hold on: the Wikipedia article directly contradicts your most serious claim, that workers were enslaved. They were not. Please admit your lie.
No soldiers were killed, nor were any railroad executives or civilians. And yet I think you find the $940,000 in property damage far more distressing than the deaths of American citizens at the hands of their own country's army.
What I find distressing is that your mind is unable to decouple the essential elements of a strike (work stoppage) from trespassing, harassment, and impeding the operation of a business. Rejecting the latter does not imply rejecting the former. Until your understand the difference, your position on this issue will be ill-defined.
Your characterization of the workers' action in your response to Rob is wrong. The employers weren't unable to find workers capable of hooking up trains. It's really not that hard. It's just that they wanted workers who would operate on all cars, which meant expelling the current staff, which didn't want to leave.
Yancey: Before corporations were required to negotiate with organizations formed by their employees, they often resorted to the tactics you described. They simply stonewalled and refused to acknowledge that the employees had formed an organization. And they were very successful in preventing workers from negotiating anything with them. While the corporations' property rights were held sacrosanct, the employees' freedom to join together and have a meaningful voice was severely hampered.
But I believe that there's more to life that property rights. I realize that's politically incorrect heresy her in Objectivismland. You'll note that I've invoked a lot of examples in my exchange with Person from the US in the 1865-1935 period. In many ways, this was an era when the libertarian vision actually came to pass in America, in that private interests held sway over government and the economy. Worker and consumer rights were quite feeble. And the results for most Americans weren't good. The economy was mired in a cycle of heady booms and disasterous panics, with workers and farmers taking the blows of the depressions the hardest. Workers, thwarted from having any political or bargaining voice, did indeed resort to property damage and sometimes violence. Without a social safety net, poverty was serious and dire. The world was, as they say, Dickensian.
A think that limiting corporate power by compelling corporations to negotiate with their employees in some circumstances is a good idea in the same sense that I think it was a good idea for the Founders to compel the executive to share some power with the courts and the legislature. Putting too much power (as squeamish as that word makes Person) in the hands of corporate interests, or government, (or unions), creates an unbalanced and ultimately unjust society.
Person: I'm having a hard time seeing why your hypothetical landscaper strike is supposed to be such a harrowing nightmare. If I was wealthy enough to have a yard big enough and wealthy enough to employ landscapers and they formed a union, I'd negotiate with them and certainly hope to reach an agreement before they decided they needed to strike. I don't see what's so pathetic or evil about my willingness to do so, regardless of the free association or market issues at stake. Those guys work hard, after all. If anybody deserves to have a union and negotiate, it's them.
Person: I have not used the word "slave" or "enslave" at any point in any of my posts. Therefore, I have not made any claim that the railroad workers in 1894 were "slaves" or "enslaved." despite your hectoring otherwise. If we can't keep it civil, let's at least try to confine the argument to reality, okay?
Brendan_Sexton: the scenario I described is not predicated on a large yard, or lots of wealth, or even any yard at all. It could be down to some individual freelance janitor who wants to clean your house for a fee and you don't want to pay him. Yet he "goes on strike" in your bathroom and refuses to leave.
Now should you be forced to negotiate with him? Or can you just kick him out?
Wait, I can see it: you're going to throw up a smokescreen about how "Well, he wasn't already working for me before so obviously that's a morally relevant difference".
Is that about right?
Re: slavery: You said:
Yet the the federal government sent the US Army to force the union members back to work even when they weren't trespassing on anything.
Go ahead: search for it. You said that.
In that statement -- read it for yourself -- you are claiming:
1) at a time the workers were not trespassing
2) the Army *forced* them to come to work
3) and perform work
That is slavery.
We all know that didn't happen, and you claimed it did.
You probably weren't deliberately lying, but your thinking about the issue is so muddled you equivocate to the point of slander.
Now, admit: the Army did not force anyone to come to work and work for a railroad.
But I believe that there's more to life that property rights. I realize that's politically incorrect heresy her in Objectivismland.
Certainly, but what's more significant is that it took you this long to admit that your real complaint is with property rights.
Next time, be a bit more forthright instead of throwing up smokescreens about a "right to associate" being violated.
Thanks.
Person: I've got to run after this one -- I think I'm going to call it a day after this.
Firstly, I think it's telling that you think that "harrassing the operations of a railroad" is morally equivalant to Osama Bin Laden organizing the murder of thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, and that both actions deserve a lethal response from the US Army.
I've reread a chapter from a book on railway workers in the 1800s. Some more thoughts on the 1894 strike...
* The railroads worked together through a group called the General Managers Association. They enjoyed reliable access to the attourney general of the US, who was a previously a corporate lawyer who had done work for the railroads.
* At first the union leaders thought that the troops sent in by the feds would stabilize and preseve order. But when the general leading the troops met with railroad leaders but refused to meet with unionists, and troops began provoking strikers, they realized otherwise.
* The union leaders realized that the railroads would use the mail as a pretext for the injunction and urged workers to keep mail trains moving. In some cases, the railroads stopped trains themselves to bolster their calls for federal action, but in other cases the workers who were angry at the corporations' behavior did refuse to handle cars on mail trains. But it was certainly not an organized effort to block the mails, which is what the corporations persuaded the government to claim. If anything, the union as an organization attempted to lead an effort to keep the mail moving.
* There was no recorded violence or property damage before the federal troops were introduced. After the troops arrived, workers were outraged, fights broke out, things were broken, and workers were killed. Again, no soldiers or others were killed.
Slavery: The injuction barred union members from communicating with each other and effectively banned their organization overnight. The troops were ordered to compel anyone resisting the injunction to obey with the use of force. I think that workers couldn't be blamed if they decided that continuing to refuse to work--or taking another job--could be portrayed as supporting the union and therefore might put them at risk of conviction or punishment by force under the terms of the injunction. There were soldiers pointing guns at them and people were getting killed, after all, and everthing the government had done thus far legally had been pretty dubious. Is there any difference between someone who considered to be the legal property of another human being -- such as African-American slaves before Emancipation -- and someone who feels compelled to return to a certain job under the terms of an injuction enforced by federal troops? I guess that is an interesting question. I'm not terribly sure why it matters. Both situations seem legally and morally problematic to me -- you're the one who seems a little hung up on the "slavery" distinction. I don't think most people would enjoy being in either situation, but I think the railroad workers at least had a modicum of legal standing.
(I also think it's okay to take property rights, freedom of association rights, economic rights, moral rights, political rights and all kinds of rights into consideration when considering these questions. I don't remember claiming otherwise: the world's a complicated place. And who put you in charge of deciding which rights are appropriate to discuss, anyway?)
Violence: Was there violence by workers in the late 1800s? Of course. But, again, I find it interesting that you are horrified by that violence but not terribly concerned by legally dubious behavior by corporations or corporate-sponsored violence.
Another historical example: In 1867, workers in Illinois succeeded in advocating for an eight hour workday. A law was passed fairly, through the democratic process, over the objections of employers.
In response, Illinois employers simply ignored the law. The state was too weak to compel them to follow the law, so corporations succeeded in nullifying it with their on the ground power.
The eight hour day was still an issue in 1886 with the McCormick Works strike. In that case, Chicago police killed four workers as they finished listening to speakers who were denouncing McCormick, but no police or strikebreakers were killed. (The Haymarket riot occured the next night, but the fatalities there probably occured because of police killing each other with friendly fire in the melee.)
I think its very sad but not surprising that workers would get frustrated that their legal and polticial efforts to win reforms were shut down and that some of them thought that violence would be acceptable. Personally I think that political reform is far more sustainable and moral, and that's why I favor things like legal rights for workers who form unions.
Oh yeah -- the landscaper: Yes, I do think there is a difference between a landscaper who I enter into an employment agreement with and some guy who shows up on my lawn. If I am employ somebody, I have a legal, economic, and, I would argue, moral relationship with that person. If he shows up on my lawn randomly, I don't think those relationships exist. I suppose you are going to argue that employees who form unions are equivilant to landscapers who show up unannounced on my lawn, but I'm not seeing it. I presume you will soon help me out on that one...
By requiring new hires to join the union, union members maintained the security of the existence of their organization.
Of course, alternatively the Norris-LaGuardia Act outlawed yellow-dog contracts and those practices. It also gives immunity from injunctions against trespass while picketing.
Regarding the claims about immunity to antitrust (and organized crime statutes), one should at least consider the Enmons decision from 1973, which states that union violence cannot be punished under the Hobbs Act (federal crime to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery or extortion) if the violence is used to attempt to achieve "legitimate union objectives." Though of course said violence may be prosecuted under state laws. So that is a form of immunity. And of course the Clayton Act exempts unions from antitrust laws.
Also, the 1906 Trades Disputes Act in the UK did give unions total immunity from tort. A commenter could have either been from the UK or confused.
Unions are not exempt from "laws concerning organized crime."
True, not in general. However, they are exempt from quite a few federal laws, including some of those concerning organized crime, while engaging in pursuit of "legitimate union objectives."
The state coercion occurs in "right to work" states.
Indeed it does as well, which is why Milton Friedman was against those laws as well. But you have a difficult time pretending that pro-union coercion doesn't exist on a federal level with the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Clayton Act, and the Wagner/Taft-Hartley Acts. Employers are, for example, required to recognize unions even if they don't want to, and workers are required to join them. Employers and prospective workers are forbidden from signing contracts saying that the worker will not join the union, even if they both wanted to. And so on. Pretending that the employer and the union have freely negotiated the contract is a bit ridiculous as well.
Should clarify that the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 again was about immunity of tort for things done under the pursuit of union objectives, including damages done while striking. Otherwise people may think I mean something different and rejoice in pointing out that it's wrong.
Also, largely repealed... 1970 or so, IIRC.
From Brendan Sexton: "While the corporations' property rights were held sacrosanct, the employees' freedom to join together and have a meaningful voice was severely hampered."
Brendan, workers have always had the right of free association in this country. You are asking that the force of law be applied to give their voice greater weight than that of others. Indeed, you are asking to correct one wrong by perpetrating another. Rather than attack the problem of the power of the state being corrupted, you would rather corrupt it more.
Where do you draw the line? It is interesting that you completely evaded this implied question that Person asked. If your landscaper went on strike until you paid him more money, should the state force you to negotiate "in good faith"? Should he be allowed to picket in your front yard, should he be allowed to prevent other landscapers from physically entering your property to perform work for you? It is irrelevant that you would feel obligated to to negotiate. What your position implies is a willingness to coerce others into behaving as you claim to do, and violating property rights that you have now clearly stated don't mean all that much to you.
Yancey,
I didn’t argue that property rights shouldn’t matter. They are important. But I don’t believe that they should necessarily be the supreme consideration when thinking through these questions.
Here’s the central problem, I believe, with making property rights supreme and expecting that free markets will lead to free people: it just doesn’t work out that way in real life.
It’s fine and good to argue that “workers have always had the right to free association,” but as I’ve pointed out, there are easily identified circumstances when powerful economic interests are able to use their economic power and the political power that they gain to make that right essentially meaningless.
Examples: Corporations in the US have used their economic power to mobilize private armed force (Pinkerton agents, Baldwin-Felts agents) to physically disrupt union meetings and threaten workers who wanted to create an association with fellow workers. Or they withheld jobs from anyone they suspected of wanting to form a union. And, as I’ve pointed out above, they used their political power to persuade the state to use the courts and armed force against workers who wanted to exercise their freedom of association. In many cases, the the workers’ supposed freedom was made hollow and empty in actual life.
It’s equally fine and good to argue that “after 1865, African-Americans had the right to vote in every US state.” But I hope that you realize that after Reconstruction, this right was rendered meaningless in many former Confederate states through Jim Crow laws and through the armed force of KKK terrorism. African-Americans’ freedom was further restricted through day to day discrimination and segregation that was justified by invoking property rights.
In both cases, the right of association and the right to vote remained in effect, in theory. To may libertarians, having the right in theory seems to be sufficient. But I’ll join a lot of other people in believing that it makes sense to look at the conditions on the ground to figure out if workers or African-Americans can express those rights in a meaningful way, and that this is the true test.
Most libertarians I know will argue that they agree that it’s wrong for corporations or for racist whites to collude with the state to restrict anyone’s freedom. Great. But most libertarians seem to be utterly silent or cheerfully naïve about how to actually go about stopping this from happening, other not terribly specific or convincing invocation of “market forces” eventually fixing things. To me, this is similar to arguing that if the workers took control of everything the state would wither away and a utopia would come to pass.
Another common libertarian response is conveyed by Yancey: that it’s wrong to correct “one wrong [corporate collusion with the state] by perpetrating another [state intervention on behalf of workers or black voters].”
I believe that libertarians have no real answer for how to correct the first wrong (corporate domination) and that it’s inevitable that private economic interests will inevitably gain power and use their power to influence the state. John Thacker points out that the state has conveyed some rights on unions. Fair enough. I’m okay with that because I realize that corporations are entirely willing to resort to state coercion as well. Two wrongs may not make a right, as Yancey argues, but I don’t think we’re anywhere close to living in a world where there corporations will refrain from committing that first wrong.
Indeed, the railroads and industrialists of the late 1800s mouthed fervent agreement with ideals of limited government. But they were perfectly happy to expand and use government power if it helped them gain higher profits and restrain employees from having a say about compensation, working conditions, or much else. This remains true to this day, as evidenced by the behavior of corporate American and the Republican party from 2001-2007. Corporations that sanctimoniously mouth their desire for smaller government, less government spending, and fewer regulations but they are perfectly happy to turn around and lobby for more government if it suits their interests and boosts their profits. Example: corporations that are now screaming bloody murder about the disclosure requirements mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enthusiastically supported the Bush Administration’s decision to impose new disclosure mandates on labor unions that are far, far more onerous.
I think that the difference between libertarians and people like me: I don’t believe that the world is perfectible. Corporations and powerful economic interests are always going to attempt to use state power to further their interests, regardless of what they say they believe about big or small government. Recognizing that, I believe that it’s a good idea to use state power to intervene in the market—even if it means scaling somebody’s property rights a little—to enhance opportunities and the freedom of individuals who are less powerful, like frontline employees or African-American voters.
Where do you draw the line? That’s a tough question. There aren’t any easy answers, which I imagine is frustrating for libertarians who are attracted to the philosophy’s black and white certainties. I don’t believe the state should run everything. I don’t think corporations should, either. I think markets, political systems, and cultures are messy and complicated and that it takes a lot of work to find policies and laws that enhance everyone’s opportunities instead of entrenching power in the hands of corporate interests in the name of “market freedom.”
I’m comfortable with the state requiring me to recognize a landscaper’s union because I believe that pretending that the landscapers’ right to organize could exist in a meaningful way otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Yancey,
I didn’t argue that property rights shouldn’t matter. They are important. But I don’t believe that they should necessarily be the supreme consideration when thinking through these questions.
Here’s the central problem, I believe, with making property rights supreme and expecting that free markets will lead to free people: it just doesn’t work out that way in real life.
It’s fine and good to argue that “workers have always had the right to free association,” but as I’ve pointed out, there are easily identified circumstances when powerful economic interests are able to use their economic power and the political power that they gain to make that right essentially meaningless.
Examples: Corporations in the US have used their economic power to mobilize private armed force (Pinkerton agents, Baldwin-Felts agents) to physically disrupt union meetings and threaten workers who wanted to create an association with fellow workers. Or they withheld jobs from anyone they suspected of wanting to form a union. And, as I’ve pointed out above, they used their political power to persuade the state to use the courts and armed force against workers who wanted to exercise their freedom of association. In many cases, the the workers’ supposed freedom was made hollow and empty in actual life.
It’s equally fine and good to argue that “after 1865, African-Americans had the right to vote in every US state.” But I hope that you realize that after Reconstruction, this right was rendered meaningless in many former Confederate states through Jim Crow laws and through the armed force of KKK terrorism. African-Americans’ freedom was further restricted through day to day discrimination and segregation that was justified by invoking property rights.
In both cases, the right of association and the right to vote remained in effect, in theory. To may libertarians, having the right in theory seems to be sufficient. But I’ll join a lot of other people in believing that it makes sense to look at the conditions on the ground to figure out if workers or African-Americans can express those rights in a meaningful way, and that this is the true test.
Most libertarians I know will argue that they agree that it’s wrong for corporations or for racist whites to collude with the state to restrict anyone’s freedom. Great. But most libertarians seem to be utterly silent or cheerfully naïve about how to actually go about stopping this from happening, other than a not terribly specific or convincing invocation that “market forces” eventually would fix things. To me, this is similar to arguing that if the workers took control of everything the state would wither away and a utopia would come to pass.
Another common libertarian response is conveyed by Yancey: that it’s wrong to correct “one wrong [corporate collusion with the state] by perpetrating another [state intervention on behalf of workers or black voters].”
I believe that libertarians have no real answer for how to correct the first wrong (corporate domination) and that it’s inevitable that private economic interests will inevitably gain power and use their power to influence the state. John Thacker points out that the state has conveyed some rights on unions. Fair enough. I’m okay with that because I realize that corporations are entirely willing to resort to state coercion as well. Two wrongs may not make a right, as Yancey argues, but I don’t think we’re anywhere close to living in a world where corporations will refrain from committing that first wrong.
Indeed, the railroads and industrialists of the late 1800s mouthed fervent agreement with ideals of limited government. But they were perfectly happy to expand and use government power if it helped them gain higher profits and restrain employees from having a say about compensation, working conditions, or much else. This remains true to this day, as evidenced by the behavior of corporate American and the Republican party from 2001-2007. Corporations that sanctimoniously mouth their desire for smaller government, less government spending, and fewer regulations are perfectly happy to turn around and lobby for more government if it suits their interests and boosts their profits. Example: corporations that are now screaming bloody murder about the disclosure requirements mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enthusiastically supported the Bush Administration’s decision to impose new disclosure mandates on labor unions that are far, far more onerous.
I think that the difference between libertarians and people like me: I don’t believe that the world is perfectible. Corporations and powerful economic interests are always going to attempt to use state power to further their interests, regardless of what they say they believe about big or small government. Recognizing that, I believe that it’s a good idea to use state power to intervene in the market—even if it means scaling back somebody’s absolute property rights somewhat—to enhance opportunities and the freedom of individuals who are less powerful, like frontline employees or African-American voters.
Where do you draw the line? That’s a tough question. There aren’t any easy answers, which I imagine is frustrating for libertarians who are attracted to the philosophy’s black and white certainties. I don’t believe the state should run everything. I don’t think corporations should, either. I think markets, political systems, and cultures are messy and complicated and that it takes a lot of work to find policies and laws that enhance everyone’s opportunities instead of entrenching power in the hands of corporate interests in the name of “market freedom.”
I’m comfortable with the state requiring me to recognize a landscaper’s union because I believe that pretending that the landscapers’ right to organize could exist in a meaningful way otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Yancey,
I didn’t argue that property rights shouldn’t matter. They are important. But I don’t believe that they should necessarily be the supreme consideration when thinking through these questions.
Here’s the central problem, I believe, with making property rights supreme and expecting that free markets will lead to free people: it just doesn’t work out that way in real life.
It’s fine and good to argue that “workers have always had the right to free association,” but as I’ve pointed out, there are easily identified circumstances when powerful economic interests are able to use their economic power and the political power that they gain to make that right essentially meaningless.
Examples: Corporations in the US have used their economic power to mobilize private armed force (Pinkerton agents, Baldwin-Felts agents) to physically disrupt union meetings and threaten workers who wanted to create an association with fellow workers. Or they withheld jobs from anyone they suspected of wanting to form a union. And, as I’ve pointed out above, they used their political power to persuade the state to use the courts and armed force against workers who wanted to exercise their freedom of association. In many cases, the the workers’ supposed freedom was made hollow and empty in actual life.
It’s equally fine and good to argue that “after 1865, African-Americans had the right to vote in every US state.” But I hope that you realize that after Reconstruction, this right was rendered meaningless in many former Confederate states through Jim Crow laws and through the armed force of KKK terrorism. African-Americans’ freedom was further restricted through day to day discrimination and segregation that was justified by invoking property rights.
In both cases, the right of association and the right to vote remained in effect, in theory. To may libertarians, having the right in theory seems to be sufficient. But I’ll join a lot of other people in believing that it makes sense to look at the conditions on the ground to figure out if workers or African-Americans can express those rights in a meaningful way, and that this is the true test.
Most libertarians I know will argue that they agree that it’s wrong for corporations or for racist whites to collude with the state to restrict anyone’s freedom. Great. But most libertarians seem to be utterly silent or cheerfully naïve about how to actually go about stopping this from happening, other than a not terribly specific or convincing invocation that “market forces” eventually would fix things. To me, this is similar to arguing that if the workers took control of everything the state would wither away and a utopia would come to pass.
Another common libertarian response is conveyed by Yancey: that it’s wrong to correct “one wrong [corporate collusion with the state] by perpetrating another [state intervention on behalf of workers or black voters].”
I believe that libertarians have no real answer for how to correct the first wrong (corporate domination) and that it’s inevitable that private economic interests will inevitably gain power and use their power to influence the state. John Thacker points out that the state has conveyed some rights on unions. Fair enough. I’m okay with that because I realize that corporations are entirely willing to resort to state coercion as well. Two wrongs may not make a right, as Yancey argues, but I don’t think we’re anywhere close to living in a world where corporations will refrain from committing that first wrong.
Indeed, the railroads and industrialists of the late 1800s mouthed fervent agreement with ideals of limited government. But they were perfectly happy to expand and use government power if it helped them gain higher profits and restrain employees from having a say about compensation, working conditions, or much else. This remains true to this day, as evidenced by the behavior of corporate American and the Republican party from 2001-2007. Corporations that sanctimoniously mouth their desire for smaller government, less government spending, and fewer regulations are perfectly happy to turn around and lobby for more government if it suits their interests and boosts their profits. Example: corporations that are now screaming bloody murder about the disclosure requirements mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enthusiastically supported the Bush Administration’s decision to impose new disclosure mandates on labor unions that are far, far more onerous.
I think that the difference between libertarians and people like me: I don’t believe that the world is perfectible. Corporations and powerful economic interests are always going to attempt to use state power to further their interests, regardless of what they say they believe about big or small government. Recognizing that, I believe that it’s a good idea to use state power to intervene in the market—even if it means scaling back somebody’s absolute property rights somewhat—to enhance opportunities and the freedom of individuals who are less powerful, like frontline employees or African-American voters.
Where do you draw the line? That’s a tough question. There aren’t any easy answers, which I imagine is frustrating for libertarians who are attracted to the philosophy’s black and white certainties. I don’t believe the state should run everything. I don’t think corporations should, either. I think markets, political systems, and cultures are messy and complicated and that it takes a lot of work to find policies and laws that enhance everyone’s opportunities instead of entrenching power in the hands of corporate interests in the name of “market freedom.”
I’m comfortable with the state requiring me to recognize a landscaper’s union because I believe that pretending that the landscapers’ right to organize could exist in a meaningful way otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Brendan,
The employees of a company do not own it, or even a part of it, by virtue of being employees. One does not have a right to work at a particular company. This is where the split between us occurs. You think workers have rights to work whereever they wish, even if it infringes on someone else's property rights and rights of free association. Libertarians do not accept this.
I will grant that companies petition government for favorable action, but the proper way to address this through restraining the government from granting special privilege. Your approach of petitioning government to give special privilege to a special, if large, class of society solves nothing since it stands on no firm principle. Everything reduces down to who can bend governmental power to his own ends more effectively. If, as you write, business always has more power, then I fail to see how your approach can ever succeed- you have no principle and insufficient power. If you actually have sufficient power, then why not stand on principle?
As for the landscaper analogy, you still don't explain why your preferences should be enforced on others. This is the problem with trying to draw distinctions between types of transactions. Forcing employers to negotiate with one group of people is, in reality, no different than forcing anyone to deal exclusively with one vendor for any particular good or service. Without principle to back you up, any line you draw is completely arbitrary. Arbitrariness should be eliminated from the law, not enshrined within it.
Brandon--
there are easily identified circumstances when powerful economic interests are able to use their economic power and the political power that they gain to make that right essentially meaningless.
Yes. And especially in the late 19th century, "substantive due process" was used in all sorts of unfair ways against workers. But you continue to use the Pullman strike in a way that is as legitimate and relevant to today as pretending that the mob activities in the Teamsters means that all unions should be shut down as corrupt.
But sometimes those powerful economic interests are the unions themselves. Unions don't represent all the workers-- they represent the union.
You talk about Jim Crow-- in the South, it was unions and workers who did a lot more to preserve Jim Crow than the employers. Partially because the workers were racist (whereas even racist employers would like to employ cheaper black labor), but partially because whites were more likely to be skilled workers and blacks unskilled.
Unions everywhere are most powerful when representing skilled workers, and the more skilled, the more powerful since those workers are irreplaceable. Do, e.g., pilots' unions really help decrease income inequality in any real sense?
And in countries where unions are prevalent everywhere, they conspire to lock out the unskilled, the immigrant, the young, and the poor.
Yancey,
The problem is that powerful actors in society--namely, corporate interests--often don't particularly care what you deem to be the "proper" way for the government to act. They're much more preoccupied with what is profitable. I guess it sucks to imagine that life can be "reduce[d] down to who can bend governmental power to his own ends more effectively" but that tends to be how things end up working in actual markets and political arenas.
Principles mean something, but there is also the day to day reality of how powerful actors behave in the economy, in society, and in the political sphere. During the civil rights movement, black Americans decided that the principle of having civil and voting rights wasn't enough -- that state intervention was needed to make sure their rights existed in reality as well as in principle. Do you disagree? What other recourse did they have?
Why do I think that my preferences should be enforced on others? Because I think that sometimes greater social freedom and opportunity can be created through sensible enforcement of all kinds of preferences. Most Americans prefer for the federal government to compel meat processors to allow inspectors to ensure the sanitary slaughter and packing of meant. Most Americans prefer for the government to verify whether pharmaceutical manufacturers' claims about a drug's performance are true. Most Americans prefer the government to compel airlines to verify that they are maintaining their airplanes. Most Americans prefer that the government compel toy manufacturers to recall toys that hurt kids. Most Americans pefer that the government compel publicly traded companies to provide truthful financial information to shareholders. We think that enforcing these preferences creates a greater common good.
But Americans' preferences on these issues are indeed arbitrary -- most of us don't want the government to run airlines, make toys, make drugs, or package meat. We look to find a happy medium that balances market forces with interventions that safeguard that greater common good.
I think that requiring corporations to negotiate with their employees if the employees choose to form an organization falls into that category -- it is to the larger social good for working people to have a legal right to petition their employer, to advocate in the political arena through their own organization, and to have a voice about working life with their employer.
I guess the flip side of landscaper scenario is this: do you think that if you hire a landscaper he should have any rights at all as an employee?
John: I think that your claim that workers who form unions only benefit themselves doesn't hold up. Some examples: nonunion Toyota, Honda, and other foreign-owned plants in the US for the most part match the wages and benefits that have been negotiated by union members at other plants in the US. They do this, obviously, because they believe that their employees will be less interested in forming their own unions if their pay and benefits already match up with the standards for auto worker compensation that were established by union bargaining elsewhere.
Also -- in the early 1970s, union members used their political clout with the government to create job safety standards and create the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These laws affect and benefit all workers, union and nonunion. Unions also urged government to raise the minimum wage, even though the vast majority of union members make more than the minimum wage. If union members cared only about their own safety and wages, wouldn't they have demanded that these laws apply only to union members?
I think you're departing from reality in your argument that unions were the driving force behind Jim Crow. Unions have always been much weaker in the former Confederate states than they have been on the West Coast, the Midwest, and in the Northeast. Yet African-Americans' civil and voting rights have always been much stronger in areas were unions were stronger. If unions were the driving force behind segregation, wouldn't the opposite have been true? Unions were certainly stronger in Minneapolis than in Atlanta or Richmond. Why did blacks in Minnesota have more voting, housing, and education opportunities than blacks in Georgia or Virginia?
Moreover, it was unions that provided financial and organizational support for the civil rights movement, especially in its early days. A former Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters leader helped MLK, Rosa Parks, and others organize the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Steelworkers helped purchase cars to run carpools while people were boycotting the buses. The United Auto Workers provided much of the funding for the 1963 March on Washington and for many of the early civil rights organizations. Why did the civil rights leaders who organized the 1963 march invite Walter Reuther, the president of the UAW, to speak, but not the president of Ford or GM?
Union-supported legislators like Hubert Humphrey were the main leaders in the fight for the federal laws that finally undid Jim Crow. Segregationist leaders like Strom Thurmund were not friendly to unions.
Keep in mind that Martin Luther King was killed when he went to Memphis to support striking garbage workers and their union. If unions were the driving force behind segregation, wouldn't King have been trying to break the union?
You're right that many Southern and Northern workers were racist, and that unions sometimes were racist, especially in the building trades. Unions are human institutions and guilty of all of our national sins. But to argue that for the most part unions opposed the civil rights movement and attempted to maintain Jim Crow is like arguing that baseball fans in the New England area strongly prefer for the NY Yankees to win the World Series every year.
I think your other points are also just as weak, but unfortunately I've got to run...
I have to wonder how many commenters have been in a union. I was a member of the IBEW and the Steelworkers. The local I was in for the IBEW was more of social club where we did everything by majority vote and there was no pressure of any kind, or hard feelings. It was also in a town of 8k people. The steelworkers on the other hand.....I worked for a company that merged with another company and that company employees were represented by the Steelworkers. I