Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Union Legislation
Message-ID: <685@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 13:04:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.685
Posted: Thu Aug 15 13:04:20 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 20:37:23 EDT
References: <270@ihnet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 70

[Disclaimer: while I disagree with many aspects of libertarianism, I will
here argue from that viewpoint.]

In article <270@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes:
> [Continuing the discussion with MRH on appropriate levels of economic freedom]
> > Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
> > I specifically disagree with the idea of breaking unions.  Unions are
> > entirely compatible with the idea of a free market, and should be considered
> > compatible with libertarian ideas of non-coercion.  Indeed, the origin of a
> > great deal of law concerning unions was to prevent physical coercion by
> > employers against employees attempting to freely organize.  Naturally,
> > there is a fair amount wrong with unionization and laws concerning it today:
> > but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> When I expressed approval for Reagan's union "breaking" policies,
> I undoubtedly exaggerated my true position.
> Actually, I am very libertarian with regard to unions, and I cannot
> condone legislation supporting or restricting organized labor.
> In my opinion, unions are (should be) a specific instantiation
> of contractual agreements; a group of workers signs a contract
> with an employing agency, agreeing to provide services for specific
> salaries and working conditions.  when the contract is up, anything goes.

I have a [different?] vision of unions.  Unions are voluntary contractual
organizations, much like corporations.  They provide a service at a fee,
decided by contract.  A clause of that contract may be exclusive rights to
providing certain manpower services, thus excluding non-union independant
and/or individual contractors.

> Neither party should be obligated to renew the contract, and neither
> party may violate an existing contract.
> This implies, the company cannot fire union members during the contract
> period, or change their salaries or working conditions,
> *UNLESS* the employees themselves are violating the contract (e.g. not
> providing the services due to incompetence, laziness, or going out on strike).
> When it is time to negotiate a new contract, either side should be able
> to say "screw you" with impunity.

Either side right now can say "screw you" with legal impunity.  Economic
impunity is a different story.  Both sides can suffer economically.

[Long and interesting discussion deleted, claiming economic costs from
protection and protectionism of unions.]

At the heart of the union argument is a basic question that is poorly
addressed by libertarians.  The question of what powers are to be allowed
to grow, and what will limit them.  In a libertarian society, an employer
might help or hinder employees to organize for a union, so long as he is
"non-coercive".  So, instead of allowing a parallel power structure to arise,
it will usually be in an employers interest to hinder such organization.
By banning campaigning on his property, firing proponents (usually feasible:
pay off whatever contracts the few rabblerousers have), and a variety of
other union-busting techniques.  Thus we have a strong tendency to
monolithic organizations, with no checks and balances.  And a de-facto
right to stiffle other potential organizations that, once "born", might
compete perfectly well in the libertarian free market.

I feel that one of the strong points of our system of organization in
the USA is that the interactions of rival power structures (business,
military, government, union, class action, pacs, press, etc.) provide the
feedback which makes our system stable, and reduces the prevalence of
abuse.  It levels our society, and makes it more equitable.  It helps
to prevent the emergence of castes or feudalism.

From this point of view, I view unions as an important feature of our
society.  Encouraging the formation of entities like unions is comparable
to encouraging the formation of businesses: people can benefit.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh