Does anyone know where one might find an Austrian/Libertarian analysis of the history of the American Labour movement? I am curious abou the claim that labour legislation evolved as a well intentioned counterforce against the "abuses of the free market". If is not the case, there must be an alternative motivation for the rise of labour unions in America, but this is something I cannot find in any treatment of history online, which takes for granted the "problem" that needed fixing.
I am particularly interested in the rise of labour unions 1900-1930. Has any libertarian written extensively about this, with a source that can be found online?
Tim
Labor Union was and is always about creating/preserving a monopolistic labor pool at a higher price point at the expense of less well paid laborers by excluding the latter of the opportunity for promotion. The real motivation for labor regulations that limited women and children was because women and children cost less. Without the factory employment, women and children worked much longer hours and much harder jobs in the farms; in fact it was well recorded that most farm girls found textile mills jobs to be much lighter than what they had to do back home on the farm (even just the endless drudgery of washing, sewing and keeping the fireplace working around the clock). Labor movement in the 1900-1930's was all the more about preserving pricing advantages. Notice, most labor unions formed at that time (and subsequently) were in industries that had very high wages. Steel and later automobile industries paid the highest wages as they were the cutting edge technology of the time. Unions were/are never about counteracting "abuses of the free market," unless you call competive pressure from fellow laborers on a lower rung a free market "abuse." Unions are designed to preserve previlages of the well paid laborers by exluding less well paid laborers from promotion.
Its not like unions were the only groups to abuse state power, businesses did it too (really any group will abuse power if they are allowed to, and its easier for smaller numbers of wealthy people to do this for organizational reasons if nothing else). It wasn't uncommon to use thugs or local police to break up strikers.
I regard the labor movement in a similar light to the civil rights movement. Both were the result of legitimate injustices, and both went too far. Instead of simply nullifying the injustices they were being subject to, both movements siezed some power for themselves. And so it goes...