public unions versus the public

[Darrell Hougen]

One man's unethical coercion is another man's successful contract negotiation.

Living wage is indeed not a valid concept. But it works so darned well in practice.

Most workers do not have enough time to wait for the free markets to push up their wages before the rent is due.

Unions are not coercive unless they are somehow supported by the government.

As for markets pushing up workers' wages, that's not true. In a free market wages decrease over time--as the population increases and money supply remains the same. However, the cost of living should decrease at a faster rate than wages, and therefore the purchasing power of wages would effectively increase. This is a result of increased productivity (technology).

Unions may very well be a legitimate way to keep employers in check, like blacklists, as long as they have no connection to real coercion. Unions are like the counterpoint to monopolies.

Any non-violent attempt to increase workers wages is acceptable, as would be any non-violent action from employers to cut costs.

We should not focus on one or the other, but accept that there must be forces working against each other in order to attain any sustainable solution.

In the U.S., at least, unions are provided with coercive powers by the laws. For example, it is impossible to immediately replace striking workers with permanent substitutes. Many unions engage in explicit coercion by attempting to close factories or intimidate replacement workers. In closed shop states, everyone that works for a company that is unionized must join the union and pay dues. And, many public sector unions are protected by laws that force everyone to join and pay dues or, for example, purchase a union run healthcare plan that is overpriced with the excess going into union coffers.

When I stated that wages go up over time, I was, of course, referring to purchasing power. You're not really arguing that point, but, I'm not sure why you think that there would necessarily be deflation in a free-market economy. It is not necessarily the case that any currency would be tied to the gold standard. In fact, in a free economy, banks and others might be free to introduce their own money. But, I don't want this to turn into a big discussion of monetary policy. I'm just pointing out that deflation is not inevitable and probably doesn't make for good monetary policy.

Generally speaking, I think that union negotiations over wages and work rules is counter-productive. In the long run, they simply make the businesses for which they work less competitive.

Super large business enterprises may lead to corruption of the political process, so there might have to be restrictions of some sort, and perhaps unions have some role to play in such cases. Still, look at what happened to Detroit. The imbalance of power in favor of unions has led to the destruction of that city. And, in the case of public sector unions, the unions basically exist in opposition to the tax payers.

At the beginning of the industrial era, unions were more useful and necessary than they are today. They were most useful in the case of small, one-company towns where people were isolated and had no choice but to work for the company or move out of town without knowing where they were going. But, that kind of situation has largely disappeared. There are very few company towns and people aren't nearly as isolated as they once were. People have telephones, tv's, internet, and automobiles that they can jump in and drive across the country in search of better conditions.

Darrell

[studiodekadent]

It is indeed sad that a living wage and job security can be achieved by labour unions, and that the entire world economy is being destroyed by them. Obviously their time is past, as no one today deserves or should expect a living wage, much less the continuation of any wage, unless they continually surpass the expectations of the free markets, those infallible arbiters of excellence.

This is a ridiculous strawman and you know it.

There is nothing wrong with voluntary unions, indeed IMO they are good things. But state-privileged unions, and particularly public sector unions, are a Public Choice time bomb.

Please, actually look at some Public Choice Theory literature. You've been on these forums long enough to know that the critique being advanced against public unions is a far more sophisticated and nuanced one than your misrepresentation of it.

[Robert Baratheon]

I've never met someone who is "anti-union" where unions are voluntary associations absent special status and political powers. I'm not even sure what the argument would be there - that workers should only be allowed to contract individually? It makes little sense.

Collective bargaining is a great check on big business in theory, but the unfortunate realiy is that corrupt political privileges have turned unions into a coercive organized looting effort that only encourages laziness, greed, corruption, and grievance-mongering among leadership and members. When the goodies run out over the few decades it takes the union life cycle to run its course, it's the "brothers" who then turn on each other like starving rats in a cage, with leadership jumping ship and moving on to their next piracy. Many labor leaders in public education, for example, used to work for the Teamsters, which is why school teachers are now being represented by tattooed thugs with bullhorns who openly threaten school board members and principals. They then lament getting so little respect professionally.

[BaalChatzaf]

I've never met someone who is "anti-union" where unions are voluntary associations absent special status and political powers. I'm not even sure what the argument would be there - that workers should only be allowed to contract individually? It makes little sense.

Collective bargaining is a great check on big business in theory, but the unfortunate realiy is that corrupt political privileges have turned unions into a coercive organized looting effort that only encourages laziness, greed, corruption, and grievance-mongering among leadership and members. When the goodies run out over the few decades it takes the union life cycle to run its course, it's the "brothers" who then turn on each other like starving rats in a cage, with leadership jumping ship and moving on to their next piracy. Many labor leaders in public education, for example, used to work for the Teamsters, which is why school teachers are now being represented by tattooed thugs with bullhorns who openly threaten school board members and principals. They then lament getting so little respect professionally.

Unions haven't been entirely voluntary since the Wagner act was passed.

[Robert Baratheon]

Unions haven't been entirely voluntary since the Wagner act was passed.

Correct. Only workers living in states that have adopted right-to-work laws have the option not to join or pay a union in their workplace, although the union still represents them in many respects. I live in a right-to-work state by choice (the options were VA, MD, or DC - not really a choice at all), so my spouse and I save around $1100/year by not having to pay union dues. Since the union in my workplace is run by a reprehensible group of socialist radicals who antagonize even the good managers just to be seen and heard, I'm quite happy about not being coerced by my government to pay them. Since most of the dues money seems to be funneled to (Democratic) politicians I wouldn't want to support, that goes doubly so.

[caroljane]

It is indeed sad that a living wage and job security can be achieved by labour unions, and that the entire world economy is being destroyed by them. Obviously their time is past, as no one today deserves or should expect a living wage, much less the continuation of any wage, unless they continually surpass the expectations of the free markets, those infallible arbiters of excellence.

This is a ridiculous strawman and you know it.

There is nothing wrong with voluntary unions, indeed IMO they are good things. But state-privileged unions, and particularly public sector unions, are a Public Choice time bomb.

Please, actually look at some Public Choice Theory literature. You've been on these forums long enough to know that the critique being advanced against public unions is a far more sophisticated and nuanced one than your misrepresentation of it.

I was indeed only thinking of voluntary unions, and will look more into the differences. Also the differences in the laws and structures of unions between here and the US. I will also say I look with no kindly eye on the Toronto Police union, whether it is voluntary or not.

I will put my straw man back in his corner and play with him later.

[jts]

About unions and wages:

In a free market, prices adjust to where supply and demand are equal. This is elementary; everyone who knows anything about economics knows this. Also in any balancing act, there is continuous change to correct a momentary imbalance. So in a free market supply and demand of any product or service will always be approximately equal. When I say supply and demand, I mean at a given price. So for example you will seldom or never see in a free market a shortage or an excess of computers or bread or bananas or whatever. By shortage, I mean you go to Safeway and there is no bread or no tomatoes. By excess, I mean they have warehouses full of stuff they can't sell. That kind of thing might happen as the normal thing in a communist country but seldom or never happens in a free economy country.

When prices are forced above or below the free market level, what happens? Imbalances. If the price is above, then supply is greater than demand. If the price is below, then the demand is greater than the supply. In a free market, the price would self-correct and the balance would be restored. But when government sets price minimums or maximums or fixes the price, the market is not free to restore he balance.

Wages are prices. A wage is a price on labour. So the same principle applies to wages. What happens when a union forces the wage above the free market level? Imbalance. More people want to work at that wage than the number of people who can get hired at that wage. The supply of labour is greater than the demand for labour. That means unemployment.

By raising wages above the free market level, unions contribute to unemployment.

Leave the economy alone. Let it solve its own problems. The patient economy that is least doctored is best doctored. The wisdom of the body intelligent individuals interacting with other intelligent individuals will restore health wealth. The doctor government who doctors governs least doctors governs best.

[anthony]

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.

The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of politics".

Thomas Sowell

jts: well put and funny.

[merjet]

"The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of politics economics."

[anthony]

Ah, right - thanks.

[jts]

In a free market, scarcity is usually an opportunity to make money. A scarcity of computers is an opportunity to make money by making computers. In a free market, scarcity tends to not last long.

[Darrell Hougen]

Jerry,

You wrote such a nice explanation of supply and demand, above, that I know you generally understand what you're talking about. However, I think we should be careful when discussing "scarcity" in the economic sense. In my understanding, "scarcity" generally refers to the unlimited wants and needs of people in an economy and the limited supply of goods available to satisfy them. In that sense, goods are always scarce because goods are finite at any one time but human wants and needs are unlimited.

On the other hand, "demand" refers money or wealth that is available to purchase goods and services. The free market responds to demand, not scarcity. So, some third world country might have a scarcity of computers, but the market isn't going to respond because the people of third world countries don't have the money to buy computers. They need computers but can't demand computers.

So, Thomas Sowell was exactly correct when he said, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it." Everyone might want to drive a fancy sports car or top-of-the-line SUV, but there aren't enough available at prices that people can afford to pay (or that the entire population could afford to pay if we looted the rich) to satisfy everyone that wants one. And what if everyone wants to live in a mansion? Etc. At any one time, there is always scarcity and people must be economical (or thrifty) in their choices.

Darrell

[Dglgmut]

Scarcity applies to everything--your body, how many places you can be in at once, how many things you can do at once, the amount of space in the world, the amount of time you have to live etc.

[caroljane]

Scarcity applies to everything--your body, how many places you can be in at once, how many things you can do at once, the amount of space in the world, the amount of time you have to live etc.

Yes, but that should not prevent you from taking on as many jobs as possible to maximize your productive capacity.

[Dglgmut]

Scarcity applies to everything--your body, how many places you can be in at once, how many things you can do at once, the amount of space in the world, the amount of time you have to live etc.

Yes, but that should not prevent you from taking on as many jobs as possible to maximize your productive capacity.

I don't think you know what you're saying...

[Dglgmut]

It is funny to read this on the very day that I read that McDonalds has admitted that nobody could actually live on the minimum wage, however many hours they worked. They counsel their employees how to `Budget`and `plan.` Yeah.

Also, it's funny nobody mentioned... MCDONALD'S WORKERS?

McDonald's should be run by HIGHSCHOOL kids! Carol's sick idea of an economy is apparently a bunch of retarded adults working demeaning jobs until they die...

Monkeys should have higher aspirations.

[merjet]

Wisconsin teachers unions collapsing

[Mikee]

Wisconsin teachers unions collapsing

Free to choose...

It's a beautiful thing.

[BaalChatzaf]

Wisconsin teachers unions collapsing

Speed the day!

[moralist]

Wisconsin teachers unions collapsing

Thanks, Merlin.

You made my day.

[studiodekadent]

Teacher's Unions collapsing is ALWAYS good news.

Its like when I learned my high school Head Of House died in a car crash. The evil b**ch deserved it. I hope that the creature's death was slow and excruciatingly painful.

Anything that makes teachers-of-children suffer makes me happy (exception for Montessori teachers and Economics teachers).

[Dglgmut]

Its like when I learned my high school Head Of House died in a car crash. The evil b**ch deserved it. I hope that the creature's death was slow and excruciatingly painful.

This part makes you sound a bit like a psycho.

[caroljane]

More than a bit. I am hoping it is just a bit of gothic hyperbole.

Revenge fantasies are a staple of literature, and maybe of other arts, I wouldn't know. They are nearly universal among adolescents. \one of my discomforts reading AS was the tunnel scene. I could not help feeling the described passengers were not just concretized abstracts, but representing real people Rand knew, and that she enjoyed killing them off fictionally.

,

"Glory, glory halleluia,.

Teacher hit me with a ruler

I bopped her on the beanie

with a rotten tangerine

And she never taught school no more.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school,

We have tortured every teacher , we have broken every rule.

As we march down the hall to shoot the principal\

Our class goes marching on."

-Trad.

[Dglgmut]

one of my discomforts reading AS was the tunnel scene. I could not help feeling the described passengers were not just concretized abstracts, but representing real people Rand knew, and that she enjoyed killing them off fictionally.

You're definitely wrong. It's unavoidable that something like that had to happen in the story... it was about shit hitting the fan because of socialist policies. No matter what disaster she chose you could have said the same thing.

[BaalChatzaf]

one of my discomforts reading AS was the tunnel scene. I could not help feeling the described passengers were not just concretized abstracts, but representing real people Rand knew, and that she enjoyed killing them off fictionally.

You're definitely wrong. It's unavoidable that something like that had to happen in the story... it was about shit hitting the fan because of socialist policies. No matter what disaster she chose you could have said the same thing.

And Dagny shooting the guard? She was on a guerilla op and killing the guard to silence him as a military necessity. But the way Ayn Rand told it, Dagny killed the guard because he could not make up his mind.