In the 19th century most of the factories in western countries have made their employees work for 12 hours a day and more. After a few years of such exhausting work many people had become ill, but then the factories just replaced them with new workers. These short-sighted policies I believe have not only decreased the total economic output but also made a lot of people ill and exhausted. Although I am not an expert on that period, but it seems to me that unionizing and labor laws have lead to a better economy and well being overall. So despite the fact that unions and labor laws are usually considered anti-Libertarian, I am not convinced it is always the case. What do you think?
Yes, they are always bad. They punish business owners, and non-union labor.
Unions are not inherently anti-libertarian any more than corporations are inherently anti-libertarian. At the core they're just a group of people voluntarily agreeing to pool thier labor under specific conditions. However contemporary unions love using the State to obtain advantages and protections.
Labor laws, however, don't jive with libertarian thought.
Overall the improvement in working conditions wasn't nessecarily due to labor laws. As society's capital improved, people increased thier standard of living and demanded more lesiure time and compensation. Likewise, employers were also richer and more willing to give into thier employee's demands. At the same time many employers were finding out that, as you noted, working people ragged was a poor way of treating "human capital", and that they could get large increases in productivity by actually decreasing working hours, improving working conditions, etc.
If a union is taking no agressive action (physically blocking or attacking non-union workers, destroying equipment, etc.) or getting help from the State then where's the harm? I think saying they are always bad is going to far.
Eugene: Although I am not an expert on that period, but it seems to me that unionizing and labor laws have lead to a better economy and well being overall. So despite the fact that unions and labor laws are usually considered anti-Libertarian, I am not convinced it is always the case.
Although I am not an expert on that period, but it seems to me that unionizing and labor laws have lead to a better economy and well being overall. So despite the fact that unions and labor laws are usually considered anti-Libertarian, I am not convinced it is always the case.
Can something be a union without using anything but peaceful negotiation?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
LogisticEarth:I think saying they are always bad is going to far.
When are they good?
Eugene:In the 19th century most of the factories in western countries have made their employees work for 12 hours a day and more.
As opposed to working on the farm for 12 hours a day and more?
Eugene:After a few years of such exhausting work many people had become ill, but then the factories just replaced them with new workers.
Do you have anything with which to back up this claim?
Eugene:These short-sighted policies I believe have not only decreased the total economic output but also made a lot of people ill and exhausted.
If they decreased the total economic output, then why would factory owners and managers continue such policies?
Eugene:Although I am not an expert on that period, but it seems to me that unionizing and labor laws have lead to a better economy and well being overall. So despite the fact that unions and labor laws are usually considered anti-Libertarian, I am not convinced it is always the case.
Unions per se are not anti-libertarian. Of course, a lot of the unions' power comes from laws which force businesses to negotiate with them. In a free market, businesses would not be prima facie obligated to negotiate with unions.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Woah woah woah. I went to a government school where we were forced to pick crops for a local and politically-connected restauranteur ... I mean grow local, organic food for the glorious benefit of our bodies... and the purse of the politically-connected restauranteur.
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."
They are "good" when they achieve more favorable working conditions/compensation from their employer for thier members via non-aggressive means. Investors pool thier capital to acheive better deals for themselves, why is it "bad" for workers to pool thier collective negotiations with thier employer?
You guys should probably make it clear as to what definitions you're each using. That is, unions backed by the state versus unions as voluntary associations.
He said labor laws, so I am assuming we were just talking about that.
**QUOTE**
**QUOTE** (How do I quote people?)
I think because new immigrants came every time, so the factories could dispose of the old and tired workers and get the new immigrants.
Collective negotiation lowers the cost of negotiations. While some in the group may inevitably get worse terms than they would have if they had negotiated their contract individually, collective negotiation is advantageous if the costs of individual negotiation outweigh these potential gains.
State-backed unions are bad, for the same reasons everything state-backed is bad, but I can imagine "private unions" may work like firms: A company may pay a "worker's union" for the services of their employees rather than paying the employees themselves, and the employees receive their salaries from the union. Obviously this arrangement has to be more advantageous than individual employment contracts for everyone but I see no inherent reason why it wouldn't work in at least some circumstances.
Unions (guilds) are not necessarily bad. Labor legislation is necessarily bad.
Clayton -