11 ms·

I can't imagine this not impacting the impartiality of staff when teaching subjects related to labor unions, like Economics.

eesmith 9y ago
Is there any thing you can think of which would not impact your need for impartial staff? Because I think your comment is a "damned any way" viewpoint. If they voted to not unionize, then it could still affect the teaching of subjects related to labor unions. Eg, "Why are a bunch of anti-union people teaching business courses? Aren't they just going to train the next generation of managers to hate unions?" If they never considered unionization, then that too might be seen as a bias, either directly by the TAs/RAs, or a selection bias by Harvard in how they pick their TAs/RAs.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Labor unions depend on laws that inhibit the contract freedom of employers for the above-market wages they fetch their members. They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict.
  - hekfu 9y ago
    > Labor unions depend on laws that inhibit the contract freedom of employers for the above-market wages they fetch their members. > They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. > For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict. Imagine this: the labourers instead form a company, each holding a number of shares, taking what you call market wages for whatever they are doing. They create a new position inside this company, let's call it union ltd., to negotiate a contract between the university and union ltd. Union for the services the members provide. Any surplus the union negotiates is distributed via dividends on the shares. Is this now differen to what you describe? Or different to any outsourcing company? Unions are nothing more, nothing less than a negotiation,i.e. business tactic, just like we use outsourcing as a business tactic
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      You're deeply mistaken. Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market. Their power depends entirely on laws that restrict the contracting freedom of the employer. For instance, the law prohibits an employer from firing workers for unionizing, or firing unionized workers for striking. It forces employers to engage in collective bargaining when a union forms and demands it. This mandate to collectively bargain includes a prohibition on the employer negotiating individually with employees that would prefer individual negotiations. It is due to these laws that union members get above market wages.
      - eesmith 9y ago
        Going back to my original comment, I think it's clear that if the TAs felt like you do, then there would be a clear bias towards anti-unionism at Harvard, and we would have to distrust their ability to be impartial. As regards your followup, you are only looking at 1/2 of the picture. Yes, there are restrictions on what an employer can do, eg, prohibitions against firing a worker for unionizing. On the other hand, since the Taft-Hartley Act, unions are prohibited from "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns." (Quoting Wikipedia.) The idea is to remove so-called "unfair labor practices" from both the employer and the union. So you can't just point to the restrictions on employers and stop there. Your statement "Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market." is contrary to the historical evidence. We know that unions exist in a free market and with no laws to support them because history gives clear examples. It wasn't until Commonwealth v. Hunt in 1842 that unions in the US were determined to be legal in the first place. Previously people who tried to use their collective bargaining power were sometimes prosecuted for criminal conspiracy. Under your free market hypothesis, how did these early unions exist without laws to back them up? It's because collective bargaining can be effective even without legal enforcement. Quoting from the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt: '"Wait, Horne’s master, testified that "he did not feel at liberty to employ any but society men," because he "would not wish to lose five or six good workmen for the sake of one."' No law force him to accept the union. Your last line is "It is due to these laws that union members get above market wages." That's neither here nor there. We are far from a free market, in regards to employment, and we don't know what the free market rate would be if both employers and unions were unconstrained in what they could do. Moreover, people in unions may accept lower rates than those not in a union. Some people would rather have the stability of a long-term job that is not affected by one's ability to kiss up to the boss, and accept the trade-off of having a lower salary for that stability. We also know that companies engage in collusion to lower salaries. See the settlement a few years ago where Apple, Google and several other Silicon Valley companies allegedly "illegally conspired to prevent their workers from getting better job offers." (Quoting https://phys.org/news/2015-09-415m-settlement-apple-google-wage.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-415m-settlement-apple-google-w... ) If you really believe in a free market, then it seems you think that group of employers should be able to work together collectively to lower employee wages, yes? If employers can act collectively, then why shouldn't employees act collectively?
resoluteteeth 9y ago
Working under what are perceived to be poor conditions might also affect the impartiality of the staff when teaching about capitalism. Perhaps the solution would have been for the university to treat them better in the first place so they didn't feel the need to unionize?
ianleeclark 9y ago
There is no impartiality or diversity of different economics taught currently. The only economics taught in most universities is complete reference to capitalism. I say this having a degree in economics and forgoing acceptance into a PhD program due to the current bias
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Economics is one of the most impartial academic fields. The deference to market principles is due to the empirical evidence showing they promote economic efficiency, and not bias. If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example. I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions. This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. How strong is the evidence behind homo economicus? As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. And, umm, "started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics"? May I introduce you to the field of Marxist economics? It's only about 150 years old. It's not like unions, and the effects of unions on economics, is anything new. Richard D. Wolff is likely the most vocal of American Marxist economists, with many videos on YouTube. Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: > The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

eesmith 9y ago

Is there any thing you can think of which would not impact your need for impartial staff? Because I think your comment is a "damned any way" viewpoint. If they voted to not unionize, then it could still affect the teaching of subjects related to labor unions. Eg, "Why are a bunch of anti-union people teaching business courses? Aren't they just going to train the next generation of managers to hate unions?" If they never considered unionization, then that too might be seen as a bias, either directly by the TAs/RAs, or a selection bias by Harvard in how they pick their TAs/RAs.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Labor unions depend on laws that inhibit the contract freedom of employers for the above-market wages they fetch their members. They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict.
- hekfu 9y ago
  > Labor unions depend on laws that inhibit the contract freedom of employers for the above-market wages they fetch their members. > They're rent-seeking organizations where the benefits concentrate to their members, while their costs diffuse widely across the general population. > For these reasons, I suspect being a part of a union is a significantly larger source of bias than not being part of one, and that's roughly what Public Choice Theory on special interests would predict. Imagine this: the labourers instead form a company, each holding a number of shares, taking what you call market wages for whatever they are doing. They create a new position inside this company, let's call it union ltd., to negotiate a contract between the university and union ltd. Union for the services the members provide. Any surplus the union negotiates is distributed via dividends on the shares. Is this now differen to what you describe? Or different to any outsourcing company? Unions are nothing more, nothing less than a negotiation,i.e. business tactic, just like we use outsourcing as a business tactic
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    You're deeply mistaken. Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market. Their power depends entirely on laws that restrict the contracting freedom of the employer. For instance, the law prohibits an employer from firing workers for unionizing, or firing unionized workers for striking. It forces employers to engage in collective bargaining when a union forms and demands it. This mandate to collectively bargain includes a prohibition on the employer negotiating individually with employees that would prefer individual negotiations. It is due to these laws that union members get above market wages.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Going back to my original comment, I think it's clear that if the TAs felt like you do, then there would be a clear bias towards anti-unionism at Harvard, and we would have to distrust their ability to be impartial. As regards your followup, you are only looking at 1/2 of the picture. Yes, there are restrictions on what an employer can do, eg, prohibitions against firing a worker for unionizing. On the other hand, since the Taft-Hartley Act, unions are prohibited from "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns." (Quoting Wikipedia.) The idea is to remove so-called "unfair labor practices" from both the employer and the union. So you can't just point to the restrictions on employers and stop there. Your statement "Unions would be immediately fired if they were operating in a free market." is contrary to the historical evidence. We know that unions exist in a free market and with no laws to support them because history gives clear examples. It wasn't until Commonwealth v. Hunt in 1842 that unions in the US were determined to be legal in the first place. Previously people who tried to use their collective bargaining power were sometimes prosecuted for criminal conspiracy. Under your free market hypothesis, how did these early unions exist without laws to back them up? It's because collective bargaining can be effective even without legal enforcement. Quoting from the Wikipedia page on Commonwealth v. Hunt: '"Wait, Horne’s master, testified that "he did not feel at liberty to employ any but society men," because he "would not wish to lose five or six good workmen for the sake of one."' No law force him to accept the union. Your last line is "It is due to these laws that union members get above market wages." That's neither here nor there. We are far from a free market, in regards to employment, and we don't know what the free market rate would be if both employers and unions were unconstrained in what they could do. Moreover, people in unions may accept lower rates than those not in a union. Some people would rather have the stability of a long-term job that is not affected by one's ability to kiss up to the boss, and accept the trade-off of having a lower salary for that stability. We also know that companies engage in collusion to lower salaries. See the settlement a few years ago where Apple, Google and several other Silicon Valley companies allegedly "illegally conspired to prevent their workers from getting better job offers." (Quoting https://phys.org/news/2015-09-415m-settlement-apple-google-wage.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-415m-settlement-apple-google-w... ) If you really believe in a free market, then it seems you think that group of employers should be able to work together collectively to lower employee wages, yes? If employers can act collectively, then why shouldn't employees act collectively?

resoluteteeth 9y ago

Working under what are perceived to be poor conditions might also affect the impartiality of the staff when teaching about capitalism. Perhaps the solution would have been for the university to treat them better in the first place so they didn't feel the need to unionize?

ianleeclark 9y ago

There is no impartiality or diversity of different economics taught currently. The only economics taught in most universities is complete reference to capitalism. I say this having a degree in economics and forgoing acceptance into a PhD program due to the current bias

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Economics is one of the most impartial academic fields. The deference to market principles is due to the empirical evidence showing they promote economic efficiency, and not bias. If anything, the rent-seeking behaviour of unions has started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics. You now see more economists trying to rationalize minimum wage for example. I suspect bias is introduced as people dependent on union privileges create and promulgate ideological justifications for the laws that empower unions. This shapes the cultural mores of society, resulting in positions favorable to unions becoming perceived as morally superior.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Really? Oh my. How strong is the evidence behind homo economicus? As the joke goes, the only people who follow the rational behavior model are economists and sociopaths. And, umm, "started to introduce leftist ideological biases into Economics"? May I introduce you to the field of Marxist economics? It's only about 150 years old. It's not like unions, and the effects of unions on economics, is anything new. Richard D. Wolff is likely the most vocal of American Marxist economists, with many videos on YouTube. Could you tell me how to distinguish the rent-seeking behavior of unions from the profit-seeking behavior of unions? Perhaps the start of the National Labor Relations Act might be interesting. It's from 1935, and is all about the economic effects of unions and employment: > The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce. > The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. > Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees. > Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed > It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.