4 ms·

You lost me at "labor organizing is a bad thing"... There are some flaws in the labor laws in the US, and the first thing that comes to mind is the fact the "U

by moate 7y ago

You lost me at "labor organizing is a bad thing"... There are some flaws in the labor laws in the US, and the first thing that comes to mind is the fact the "Union Monopoly", ie once a Union is established there's no competition. If you allowed for competitive union practices, then you no longer allow for rent seeking by that union because someone can always just organize a different, "better" union. I don't really care which happens first (union formations or reform to labor organization laws) but both would be my goal for a long term solution.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
If contract liberty were guaranteed, unions would lose any utility they have to their members. Before labor laws were crafted, unions used their numerical advantage to intimidate companies and other workers into respecting their monopoly on a workforce. With labor laws, that monopoly is guaranteed by the law. Either way, unions only work with a force-backed monopoly. If a company can fire workers when they unionize or strike, they will. A potentially viable free market alternative to unions is worker coops. They have the resource-pooling and sharing of unions, but without the coercion and rent-seeking.
- moate 7y ago
  You: Labor organizing is bad. Also you: a free market alternative to <organized labor> is <organized labor>. You hate the word union. You seem to have a problem with how unions function in the US. I agree! Having all carpenters represented by a single union isn't necessarily as good an answer as having all carpenters represented by several unions. It creates other problems (unions competing against each other leading to race to the bottom rating, mass firings, etc) but it's really no different than companies just hiring non-union laborers now and would hopefully lead to a larger percentage of labor represented by orgs and not individuals. There absolutely should be laws in place preventing retaliation and allowing organizations, I just don't think the US model has done well.
  - CryptoPunk 7y ago
    I don't see any moral justification for violating someone's contact liberty. If someone does not want to employ unionized workers, or workers who go on strike, they should not be forced to. Freedom is a two-way road. You have a right to do whatever you want including organize and strike but you do not have a right to force other people employ while you do these things. I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it is morally permissible to restrict freedom-of-association/contract-liberty in this way.

by moate 7y ago

CryptoPunk 7y ago

If contract liberty were guaranteed, unions would lose any utility they have to their members. Before labor laws were crafted, unions used their numerical advantage to intimidate companies and other workers into respecting their monopoly on a workforce. With labor laws, that monopoly is guaranteed by the law. Either way, unions only work with a force-backed monopoly. If a company can fire workers when they unionize or strike, they will. A potentially viable free market alternative to unions is worker coops. They have the resource-pooling and sharing of unions, but without the coercion and rent-seeking.

moate 7y ago
You: Labor organizing is bad. Also you: a free market alternative to <organized labor> is <organized labor>. You hate the word union. You seem to have a problem with how unions function in the US. I agree! Having all carpenters represented by a single union isn't necessarily as good an answer as having all carpenters represented by several unions. It creates other problems (unions competing against each other leading to race to the bottom rating, mass firings, etc) but it's really no different than companies just hiring non-union laborers now and would hopefully lead to a larger percentage of labor represented by orgs and not individuals. There absolutely should be laws in place preventing retaliation and allowing organizations, I just don't think the US model has done well.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  I don't see any moral justification for violating someone's contact liberty. If someone does not want to employ unionized workers, or workers who go on strike, they should not be forced to. Freedom is a two-way road. You have a right to do whatever you want including organize and strike but you do not have a right to force other people employ while you do these things. I simply cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it is morally permissible to restrict freedom-of-association/contract-liberty in this way.