Economics Questions

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

Nitroadict — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:14:33 GMT

John Ess:

Nitroadict:

John Ess:

Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.

+1

Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept.

I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.

Woops. I meant to say he thought they were individualist (or for individual liberty) and they were not. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He was an 'individualist socialist.' Yeah, I don't understand that either!

These are two good links that the youtube user 'darganot' has put up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1l5KcoleE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNOusS8Hsk

D'oh! Now I'm confused... :(

Despite the mix-up, Bookchin's analysis based on experience is still pretty valuable to derive counter-points to both those for & against unions.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

John Ess — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:02:54 GMT

Nitroadict:

John Ess:

Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.

+1

Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept.

I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.

Woops. I meant to say he thought they were individualist (or for individual liberty) and they were not. Sorry for the misunderstanding. He was an 'individualist socialist.' Yeah, I don't understand that either!

These are two good links that the youtube user 'darganot' has put up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1l5KcoleE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWNOusS8Hsk

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

auctionguy10 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:20:15 GMT

Does anyone know what pro-union people(the type that believe corporations are evil and that without unions- jobs would be lost and pay serverely reduced to "slave wages")- think of the type of workers that WOULD work for a lower wage? Or their opinions on unions that try to limit the amount of workers? How can this reconcile with being pro-labor?

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

wombatron — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:44:24 GMT

Nitroadict:

John Ess:

Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.

+1

Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept.

I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.

Agreed. Bookchin's criticism of "lifestylism" in general is very interesting, even though I think he is incorrect in applying it to individualist anarchism.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

Nitroadict — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:29:29 GMT

John Ess:

Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.

+1

Methinks this little slice of history provides an excellent rebuttal against both knee-jerk rejections of labor unions, as well as blind acceptance, when Boochin himself found problems in the concept.

I also found Boockin's ideas on Libertarian Municipalities interesting as well, despite heavily disagreeing with Boockin's "peeve" with individualism.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

John Ess — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:02:45 GMT

Some of the stuff the late Murray Bookchin wrote about unions was interesting. Especially since he was actually in them and experienced it first hand. Unlike the academics who called him petit-bourgeois and threatened to line him up on the wall to shoot him. There was a thought that unions would have "revolutionary" potential. But he realized that it just led to a "lifestyle" and that unions tend to be antithetical to the goals of even anarcho-syndicalism. They are anti-individualist (which Bookchin thought these movements were until finding out the opposite was true), they don't really work to create new or "improved" systems but to agitate the status quo for their own short term gain, they don't have much interest in ending violence or statism, and they don't unite all workers but necessarily limit the supply.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

DougP — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:05:00 GMT

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.

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.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

Thedesolateone — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:53:58 GMT

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.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

Thedesolateone — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:53:16 GMT

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.

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?

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

hayekianxyz — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:51:10 GMT

They're cartels, and as such they have the same problems as every other cartel.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

No2statism — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:10:27 GMT

Libertarianism is fine with labor unions as long as they're not tax payer sub'd nor affiliated with the government in any way.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

Marko — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:07:00 GMT

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.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

BobT — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:17:14 GMT

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.

Re: What's wrong with labor unions?

ama gi — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:33:36 GMT

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.