3 ms·

Yep. Though we're a rare breed I'll admit, I'm an American libertarian and I'm supportive of unions and collective bargaining. I have a caveat in that I don't

Yep. Though we're a rare breed I'll admit, I'm an American libertarian and I'm supportive of unions and collective bargaining. I have a caveat in that I don't support laws that interfere with such bargaining or artificially increase one party's market power (closed shop laws). In the US this identifies me as being "right to work" which is often seen as anti-union. For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power.

carlmr 8y ago
>For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power. That's a fair caveat from a libertarian standpoint. It's just that most of the self-declared libertarians I meet seem to have the idea that the state should forbid unions from interfering with their idea of a free market. Which sounds very unlibertarian to me.
- RA_Fisher 8y ago
  I agree that does sound unlibertarian too me too.
marcoperaza 8y ago
When people say they “support unions” they mean that they support laws that “artificially increase one side’s bargaining power”, which you say you don’t. The most important of such laws are ones that inhibit employers from replacing striking workers.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Without this law and the corollary of reasonable firing (as in with a lawful reason), unions are dead on arrival as anyone willing to unionize will get fired on the spot. This is similar to the procedural loophole of registering manifestations where the mayor or other redeposit body can virtually countermand the right to organize. It happens all the time.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I 100% agree and should have said that in the original post. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about those laws (though I flat out oppose attempts to require cause for firings in general), but I mainly wanted to point out that principled libertarians trying to square the circle, the way the person I was relying to was, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Unions can only exist and be effective, in the vast majority of cases, because the state uses its coercive power to give them artificially-inflated bargaining power. Whether that’s for the better or worse is a different question.
  - RA_Fisher 8y ago
    If conditions are bad workers have an increased ability to unionize. If they're not bad they don't. That seems like a fair incentive for businesses to keep conditions good. I think unions got a bad rap precisely because they used the government as a lever (and the trappings of that, e.g. UAW bosses in Detroit). If the government steps back the system balances itself.
ttoinou 8y ago
There is nothing 'classic liberally' wrong with unions if they don't require everybody in the profession to adhere to them and don't have a monopoly

carlmr 8y ago

>For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power. That's a fair caveat from a libertarian standpoint. It's just that most of the self-declared libertarians I meet seem to have the idea that the state should forbid unions from interfering with their idea of a free market. Which sounds very unlibertarian to me.

RA_Fisher 8y ago
I agree that does sound unlibertarian too me too.

marcoperaza 8y ago

When people say they “support unions” they mean that they support laws that “artificially increase one side’s bargaining power”, which you say you don’t. The most important of such laws are ones that inhibit employers from replacing striking workers.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Without this law and the corollary of reasonable firing (as in with a lawful reason), unions are dead on arrival as anyone willing to unionize will get fired on the spot. This is similar to the procedural loophole of registering manifestations where the mayor or other redeposit body can virtually countermand the right to organize. It happens all the time.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  I 100% agree and should have said that in the original post. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about those laws (though I flat out oppose attempts to require cause for firings in general), but I mainly wanted to point out that principled libertarians trying to square the circle, the way the person I was relying to was, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Unions can only exist and be effective, in the vast majority of cases, because the state uses its coercive power to give them artificially-inflated bargaining power. Whether that’s for the better or worse is a different question.
- RA_Fisher 8y ago
  If conditions are bad workers have an increased ability to unionize. If they're not bad they don't. That seems like a fair incentive for businesses to keep conditions good. I think unions got a bad rap precisely because they used the government as a lever (and the trappings of that, e.g. UAW bosses in Detroit). If the government steps back the system balances itself.

ttoinou 8y ago

There is nothing 'classic liberally' wrong with unions if they don't require everybody in the profession to adhere to them and don't have a monopoly