I don't understand why some libertarians get bent out of shape about unions. These same libertarians oppose anti-trust laws and don't have a problem with businesses trying to drive up prices, but somehow its wrong for wage-earners to do the same thing.
Let's imagine a world devoid of regulations. There is no right-to-work or right-to-fire or right-to-unionize, and workers and management have to duke it out on their own without political intervention on either side. Fair enough.
We can imagine that for unskilled labor, there would be low wages, long hours, and no unions. The reason, of course, is that unskilled labor is easy to replace.
On the other hand, educated workers would have a lot of negotiating power, because they are difficult to replace. They could unionize, demand six-digit pay, go on strike whenever they choose, and the management could do nothing about it. Gotta pay off those college loans somehow, right?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
As long as unions are completely voluntary for all parties involved, then there is no problem with them. However, unions have been supported by the government, and are consistent supporters of socialist polciies; hence why most libertarians despise them.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:However, unions have been supported by the government, and are consistent supporters of socialist polciies; hence why most libertarians despise them.
It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to support any policies you wish so long as you do not use violence to support them.
ama gi:We can imagine that for unskilled labor, there would be low wages, long hours, and no unions. The reason, of course, is that unskilled labor is easy to replace.
Why would you want to make it harder for replacements to get jobs?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
There is absolutely nothing wrong with unions, provided they aren't actually state-backed cartels. Today's unions are. Also, many libertarians have a knee-jerk reaction against "leftism", and universal opposition to unions is part of that.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
ama gi: laminustacitus:However, unions have been supported by the government, and are consistent supporters of socialist polciies; hence why most libertarians despise them. It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to support any policies you wish so long as you do not use violence to support them.
socialism is by definition coercive, so while I suppose just by supporting it, they are not doing anything wrong, they are basically trying to get the government to use force against others for their benefit.
BobT:socialism is by definition coercive
Not necessarily. "Socialism" might simply mean boycotting investor-owned companies in favor of worker-owned enterprises, consumer's co-ops, non-profits, gift economies, etc.
ama gi: BobT:socialism is by definition coercive Not necessarily. "Socialism" might simply mean boycotting investor-owned companies in favor of worker-owned enterprises, consumer's co-ops, non-profits, gift economies, etc.
true. I guess i meant that if someone is actively trying to get the government to enact socialist policies (such as laws favoring unions), I would feel that they are trying to infringe on my freedoms and those of others. As long as they dont want to use force, I am fine with that.
Corporatism is a system where the state determines who will get how big a piece of the pie. In corporatism the unions are a vehicle for the workers to ensure they don`t get elbowed out by plutocrats and get a reasonable bite out of that pie themselves. The problem with that is that in doing so they become a part of the corporatist system themselves, entranching it stil further. Making it even less responsive to calls for reform, because their tactics relly on the role of the state as the manager of and arbiter between classes and interests and thus help legitimise that role of the state. Too bad as the first unions in England were initialy pro-markets.
Libertarianism is fine with labor unions as long as they're not tax payer sub'd nor affiliated with the government in any way.
They're cartels, and as such they have the same problems as every other cartel.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Supporting any socialist policies entails supporting violence.
Socialism must be taken to mean involuntary socialism of course, as otherwise it is meaningless.
Fine you can join communes, and boycott whoever you want - but this is in no way socialist.
How does it involve socialisation of the means of production?
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.
GilesStratton: They're cartels, and as such they have the same problems as every other cartel.
This.
But as said, we don't oppose unions per se. We oppose favourable legislation allowing them to use violence in order to achieve their goals.
Given the history of organized labor unions (in the US at least) I don't feel it would be safe to assume that unions would not form in industries staffed by unskilled/less educated laborers. Due to the fact that there would be no scarcity of unskilled labor, the individual employee would most likely be unable to negotiate a higher salary or better working conditions. They may however, feel more compelled to band together, power in numbers as they say. Now they can all go together to the foreman/manager with their demands in an attempt to bid up wages, but the company could just as easily turn their offer down and hire on an all new staff. I am doubtful that things would end there and they'd merely threaten to strike. Unions have had a long history of preventing competing companies from bidding for these jobs. They have also barred new employees or other non-union workers entry to the work place by threatening physical violence and even making good on such threats. As mentioned already they team up with government (labor legislation etc.). Obviously these are some big reasons why libertarians get bent out of shape when they hear the word "unions"
ama gi:On the other hand, educated workers would have a lot of negotiating power, because they are difficult to replace. They could unionize, demand six-digit pay, go on strike whenever they choose, and the management could do nothing about it. Gotta pay off those college loans somehow, right?
I may be a bit unrealistic, but I see even less purpose in educated workers, in high demand (more scarce means they're difficult to replace) forming a union. If we are to assume that these skilled workers are worth six-digit-pay, are so rare that the company would bend over backwards to prevent them from striking, then there would be no need for them to unionize. Competing companies would be bidding like mad to obtain these people. Lets say company A is paying their employees well below their marginal revenue productivity and offering less than desirable working conditions. What's to stop company B from offering those employees higher wages (something closer to their MRP) or offering them better working conditions? In this situation where the skilled/educated worker is in a position to negotiate, because they're in high demand, what benefit would a union be to said worker?
I guess what puzzles me most about unions is the mindset that somehow the worker is owed employment, a specific wage, and/or a specific level of comfort on the job. Its as if the laborer owns these jobs. Employment exists in the first place because employers (benefactors) put in the time and took the risks to create a businesses. The employer IS the residual income claimant. Employment isn't really owned by anyone. Its just a contract between employers and employees, paying them a certain amount. Come to think of it, is it usually libertarians or Austrians that get bent out of shape over unions? I would say, in a manner of speaking, could be both.