I know that unions are usually despised by libertarians and true conservatives as mini-governments, but I've been thinking a lot about unions, the free market, and how best to advocate free markets to union workers. Here is my idea about how to bring at least some unions into the free market fold: use worker dues to buy shares of the companies their members work for. This would give workers an interest in how well their company performs. The union could use the profits for pensions, worker training, temporary unemployment benefits, and the like. This could prove to be a very beneficial relationship to the business, the worker, and the union. It would also benefit libertarianism since the union could educate the workers about the destructiveness of traditional union practices (e.g. raising the wage rate above the market level) and business taxes like the corporate and capital gains taxes.
I came up with this due to the highly unionized work force of my state. Michigan is overwhelmingly blue or "moderate" Republican. Nearly everyone here is pro union, except for a few seeming anti-union rebels in the upper middle class and upper class burbs. Perhaps using such an approach could bring libertarianism to union states like Michigan.
What are your thoughts?
Political Atheists Blog
If they they are voluntary, non-initiators of coercion, then sure; why not? The problem we have with unions, in there present form, is that they are backed, and given special and unrightful priviledges, by the state.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
One has to ask themselves, why would someone form a union in the absence of the state?
Why not? A common trade seems like a fine reason to form an association. Say, for sharing experience and tips & tricks, getting to know like-minded people, etc. It is indeed the coercion backed by government that corrupts the perfectly normal association.
simik: Why not? A common trade seems like a fine reason to form an association. Say, for sharing experience and tips & tricks, getting to know like-minded people, etc. It is indeed the coercion backed by government that corrupts the perfectly normal association.
Well that sounds more like a guild than a union. Unions try to set labour prices and influence workplace contracts through collective negotiation.
Unions would move to being friendly socieites and guilds in a free market.
Like any cartel, they would collapse if they tried to do anything significant in a free market.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
liberty student:Well that sounds more like a guild than a union. Unions try to set labour prices and influence workplace contracts through collective negotiation.
Well that sounds more like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me.
krazy kaju:Well that sounds more like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to me.
Let's assume that is true. Then how would you differentiate between a professional association (guild by my definition) and a cartel (union by my definition)?
A better question to ask is what would unions do if they had to compete to attract members?
Under current law a union that gets a vote passed has a monopoly on a business' employees and other unions cannot try to lure them away.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
liberty student:Let's assume that is true. Then how would you differentiate between a professional association (guild by my definition) and a cartel (union by my definition)?
There's really nothing special about a cartel. It's a group of firms to team up in order to realize economies of scale without going full-out into a megamerger.
Stranger:There's really nothing special about a cartel. It's a group of firms to team up in order to realize economies of scale without going full-out into a megamerger.
I see cartels as trying to collude to set prices through a variety of techniques. What you have described sounds like a business partnership to me not what we see with the American banking system, or the Michigan auto worker unions.
liberty student: I see cartels as trying to collude to set prices through a variety of techniques.
I see cartels as trying to collude to set prices through a variety of techniques.
And why is that bad?
Never said it was bad. I said I couldn't understand why someone would form a labour cartel in a free market. They can't prevent competition, so trying to cartelize is ultimately futile without state regulation that protects the cartel.
liberty student: Never said it was bad. I said I couldn't understand why someone would form a labour cartel in a free market. They can't prevent competition, so trying to cartelize is ultimately futile without state regulation that protects the cartel.
Scale economies in contract negotiations.
Stranger:Scale economies in contract negotiations.
Business collaboration and partnership is one thing, but that is usually a vertical integration, not a horizontal one..
In a free market, competition creates an economy of scale.
More directly, a negotiation only benefits the weak firms and labourers, not the strong ones. The negotiations are only as good as their weakest party, not their strongest.
From my observations it seems that going directly after major bought off groups by the government is not an efficient way to spend time. You have to work around it in a more practicle manner. I come from the same area as you, and I think the only way to quash unions is by bringing in decent jobs somehow (not likely at the moment). I am of the opinion that union workers in the "rust belt" will see the light and leave the unions if a major business can sprout up somehow (and government can miraculously stay out of the business' way). The fortunate thing about your average Great Lakes Democrates is they are much more practicle pragmatic people than the loony lefties on the coasts. When they see direct benefits, and this is a good time because the Rust Belt is virtualy dead, they will change their minds; that is the beauty of the Midwest, no one is that idealistic to a cause(other than some hip college kids of course).
liberty student: One has to ask themselves, why would someone form a union in the absence of the state?
For the same reason why the concept was put foreward in the first place: collective bargaining for workers.
liberty student: simik: Why not? A common trade seems like a fine reason to form an association. Say, for sharing experience and tips & tricks, getting to know like-minded people, etc. It is indeed the coercion backed by government that corrupts the perfectly normal association. Well that sounds more like a guild than a union. Unions try to set labour prices and influence workplace contracts through collective negotiation.
The guilds were the first unions, in effect.
Brainpolice:For the same reason why the concept was put foreward in the first place: collective bargaining for workers.
Right, but in the absence of the state, there is no advantage for competent workers to unionize. Incompetent workers? Absolutely. But anyone with high productivity can either (1) go to the competition or (2) compete directly. If I am a talented, motivated and competent worker, the last thing I want to do is be lumped into a union with people less productive, intelligent etc.
Without the state's union laws, no workplace could go 100% on less than a 100% ballot. That's another reason why it is futile.
One flaw in your reasoning: the unions would constitute competition in their own right.
Brainpolice:The guilds were the first unions, in effect.
They may have evolved that way, but I belong to several informal guilds, and they are very different than the modern union. We collaborate, swap labour, share information, train apprentices and engage in brotherhood activities. But we don't organize for mass action, and we certainly don't try to fix prices. We also have open door policies. Anyone can come and go as they please. There may be membership applications, but there is no contract to remain in the guild or vote taking process on action. Each guild is run privately by an interested party with a profit motive.
Of course, we're in industries with lots of competition, and people who are not competent are not very prominent in the guild. The most capable people are the most respected, and thus the ones in leadership positions.
Brainpolice:One flaw in your reasoning: the unions would constitute competition in their own right.
Ok, let's assume productive workers wanted to join a collective that includes less productive workers.
What *exclusive* advantages would the union have in competition against other non-union competitors?