Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

What Aspects of Unions are not Represenative of a Free Market?

rated by 0 users
This post has 8 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:27 PM

Unions seem as though they could come about in a free market...

but what aspects of them could not?

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:31 PM

State support.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 767
Points 11,240
Hard Rain replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:31 PM

Their utilization of government coercion.

"I don't believe in ghosts, sermons, or stories about money" - Rooster Cogburn, True Grit.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030
fakename replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:38 PM

only the violence like beating up scabs or forcible dues.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 253
Points 4,535
Mark B. replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:45 PM

limitgov:

Unions seem as though they could come about in a free market...

but what aspects of them could not?

Unions or labor guilds could and probably would operate to a minor extent in a truly free market, but they would serve a different purpose than what they currently serve in the current situation.

Currently, government coercion empowers unions in two ways.  First, the government grants each representative of a bargaining unit the power of being the EXCLUSIVE AGENT for all the workers in the bargaining unit, regardless of the employer's wishes or the wishes of the individual members of the bargaining unit.  Second, the government enforces an obligation to bargain in good faith on the employer, forcing the employer to come to an agreement with the union even if the employer has no wish to do so.

In a free market, the employer would be free to either recognize a union as representative of those workers who wish to be represented by the bargaining unit or the employer would be free to refuse to recognize any union at all.  Further, even if the employer did recognize the union, he would be free to bargain or refrain from bargaining with the union.

Under such a free market situation, I would imagine very few, probably only 2% or 3% of private sector workers would be organized into bargaining units.  Instead, must unions would operate as guilds, directing their represented laborers to their most highly productive and remunerated use.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 3:53 PM

Mark B.:

limitgov:

Unions seem as though they could come about in a free market...

but what aspects of them could not?

Unions or labor guilds could and probably would operate to a minor extent in a truly free market, but they would serve a different purpose than what they currently serve in the current situation.

Currently, government coercion empowers unions in two ways.  First, the government grants each representative of a bargaining unit the power of being the EXCLUSIVE AGENT for all the workers in the bargaining unit, regardless of the employer's wishes or the wishes of the individual members of the bargaining unit.  Second, the government enforces an obligation to bargain in good faith on the employer, forcing the employer to come to an agreement with the union even if the employer has no wish to do so.

In a free market, the employer would be free to either recognize a union as representative of those workers who wish to be represented by the bargaining unit or the employer would be free to refuse to recognize any union at all.  Further, even if the employer did recognize the union, he would be free to bargain or refrain from bargaining with the union.

Under such a free market situation, I would imagine very few, probably only 2% or 3% of private sector workers would be organized into bargaining units.  Instead, must unions would operate as guilds, directing their represented laborers to their most highly productive and remunerated use.

 

Can you give me some examples?

I think that would help me understand this better.  Thanks

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 7:43 PM

Professor Block has a paper on this very subject on his website: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/labor_relations_unions.pdf

Short answer: Illegitimate union tactics are picketing (which violates the property rights of the owner of the business) and assault against "scabs" and others trying to pass through to enter the workplace (which are obviously forms of assault and, in some cases, murder), while legitimate union tactics are walkouts and boycotts. Block also stresses his opposition to back-to-work legislation on the grounds of it being an illicit government interference into private contracts.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

After stripping away the activities made possible by privileges there is nothing left that a union can pull off.  Collective bargaining does not work.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS