4 ms·

If unions have power in a free market, that would be absolutely fine with me lol But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that u

If unions have power in a free market, that would be absolutely fine with me lol But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that union power wasn't vastly more limited before the advent of labor laws, and that what power they did have wasn't disproportionately as a result of the threat that they'd engage in the illegal acts that they were so well known for. So to clarify, while I predict any transition to a free market would result in a drastic reduction in the power of unions, I would have no problem with a scenario where my prediction proves wrong and unions have substantial power in a free market. I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors.

eesmith 7y ago
Do you, or do you not, support repealing Taft-Hartley as part of your advocacy for a free market? Why or why not? Since you argue "I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors", I think you believe the current US laws are too union friendly. Which is hilarious. Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Or have they always been pro-union? If not, when do you think the balance changed, and what caused that change? Part of what makes it hilarious is that we only need to look at the recent wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia to see that 1) their actions were illegal - state law prohibits public employee strikes, 2) it was effective not due to threat of physical intimidation but by threat of mass departure. Companies right now are disproportionately powerful, including as as a result of actually doing illegal acts. Wage theft is one of the most common crimes in the US, and it often goes unpunished. About 10 years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems and others conspired to refrain from soliciting each another's employees to keep their salaries artificially low. Their fine was less than their profit from the crime, no high-level exec went to jail, and all the companies are still geld in high esteem. Even if we stick to corporate involvement with unions, "U.S. employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns" - https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-to-union-election-campaigns/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition... > Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Employers are charged with making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, or harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns. Beyond this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. This is not surprising, because just like pro-union people engaged in "illegal acts" - and mind you, who had the biggest influence in creating all of those laws? - companies also engaged in horrid, immoral, and illegal acts. Or, do you defend the action of the government and coal mine owners involved in the Ludlow Massacre? Do you defend the actions of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency as they hired goons to physically intimidate and attack union members? There are still federal laws limiting the federal use of "The Pinks." What is your take on the conclusions of the La Follette Committee? Did the extensive espionage system of private corporations, as part of their union-fighting efforts, indeed mean that "employees became subjugated to private corporations and were denied constitutional rights"? Why did companies need to use "[M]achine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs ... to prevent and disperse union meetings"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee So sure, you can bring up "the illegal acts that [unions] were so well known for". "But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that" businesses weren't engaged in even more horrid behavior.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  >>Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Yes, in the 1880s, where there were no federal laws violating freedom of contract, and state laws that did violate it frequently being struck down by the Supreme Court under Lochner Era judicial doctrines. Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics? I'm puzzled by your insistence on this absurd notion that labor laws that violate freedom of contract don't disproportionately advantage unions. Your Gish Gallop of off-tangent anecdotes notwithstanding.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Then why can't a company sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union? I mean, if companies can establish company towns, since under the freedom of contract ideology employees are willing to live there as a condition of employment (a la Pullman), then surely a closed shop contract must also be acceptable. My "Gish Gallop"[1] is because you keep cherry picking your history to justify your specific pro-capital/anti-labor "free market" viewpoints. But you cannot point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses. This juxtaposition is appropriate as union power grew as a response to bad employment conditions. For example, yes, striking coal miners destroyed property and attacked the National Guard in 1912. Bad coal miners - very naughty indeed. Oh, wait, it was after the National Guard, along with business guards, machine-gunned the strikers' tent city. Does the freedom of contract justify those murders? Clearly, no. You asked "Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?" You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more powerful if there are laws to support the unions. Just like businesses can be more powerful if there are laws to support businesses. Try getting rid of the laws which isolate shareholders from legal liability, and see what happens to corporate power. Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed. Since my argument is that unions are legally prohibited from exercising their full power as they would in a free market, then that means unionization rates should decrease because people aren't going to pay money for something that doesn't help them. Which is why the WV teachers had a wildcat strike - illegal actions were more effective than being in a union. [1] Personally, I think it's more an example of Brandolini's law than a Gish Gallop - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...

eesmith 7y ago

Do you, or do you not, support repealing Taft-Hartley as part of your advocacy for a free market? Why or why not? Since you argue "I just don't like the laws that overwhelmingly advantage unions at the expense of investors", I think you believe the current US laws are too union friendly. Which is hilarious. Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Or have they always been pro-union? If not, when do you think the balance changed, and what caused that change? Part of what makes it hilarious is that we only need to look at the recent wildcat strike by teachers in West Virginia to see that 1) their actions were illegal - state law prohibits public employee strikes, 2) it was effective not due to threat of physical intimidation but by threat of mass departure. Companies right now are disproportionately powerful, including as as a result of actually doing illegal acts. Wage theft is one of the most common crimes in the US, and it often goes unpunished. About 10 years ago, Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems and others conspired to refrain from soliciting each another's employees to keep their salaries artificially low. Their fine was less than their profit from the crime, no high-level exec went to jail, and all the companies are still geld in high esteem. Even if we stick to corporate involvement with unions, "U.S. employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns" - https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition-to-union-election-campaigns/ https://www.epi.org/publication/unlawful-employer-opposition... > Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. And one out of five union election campaigns involves a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity. Employers are charged with making threats, engaging in surveillance activities, or harassing workers in nearly a third of all union election campaigns. Beyond this, there are many things employers can do legally to thwart union organizing; employers spend roughly $340 million annually on “union avoidance” consultants to help them stave off union elections. This combination of illegal conduct and legal coercion has ensured that union elections are characterized by employer intimidation and in no way reflect the democratic process guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. This is not surprising, because just like pro-union people engaged in "illegal acts" - and mind you, who had the biggest influence in creating all of those laws? - companies also engaged in horrid, immoral, and illegal acts. Or, do you defend the action of the government and coal mine owners involved in the Ludlow Massacre? Do you defend the actions of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency as they hired goons to physically intimidate and attack union members? There are still federal laws limiting the federal use of "The Pinks." What is your take on the conclusions of the La Follette Committee? Did the extensive espionage system of private corporations, as part of their union-fighting efforts, indeed mean that "employees became subjugated to private corporations and were denied constitutional rights"? Why did companies need to use "[M]achine guns, tear gas bombs, and clubs ... to prevent and disperse union meetings"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Follette_Committee So sure, you can bring up "the illegal acts that [unions] were so well known for". "But you're being disingenuous and or are deluding yourself if you claim that" businesses weren't engaged in even more horrid behavior.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
>>Was there ever a time in US history when you think the balance was right? Yes, in the 1880s, where there were no federal laws violating freedom of contract, and state laws that did violate it frequently being struck down by the Supreme Court under Lochner Era judicial doctrines. Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics? I'm puzzled by your insistence on this absurd notion that labor laws that violate freedom of contract don't disproportionately advantage unions. Your Gish Gallop of off-tangent anecdotes notwithstanding.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Then why can't a company sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union? I mean, if companies can establish company towns, since under the freedom of contract ideology employees are willing to live there as a condition of employment (a la Pullman), then surely a closed shop contract must also be acceptable. My "Gish Gallop"[1] is because you keep cherry picking your history to justify your specific pro-capital/anti-labor "free market" viewpoints. But you cannot point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses. This juxtaposition is appropriate as union power grew as a response to bad employment conditions. For example, yes, striking coal miners destroyed property and attacked the National Guard in 1912. Bad coal miners - very naughty indeed. Oh, wait, it was after the National Guard, along with business guards, machine-gunned the strikers' tent city. Does the freedom of contract justify those murders? Clearly, no. You asked "Do you really believe that unions were no less powerful before the advent of labor laws? Have you seen the unionization rate statistics?" You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more powerful if there are laws to support the unions. Just like businesses can be more powerful if there are laws to support businesses. Try getting rid of the laws which isolate shareholders from legal liability, and see what happens to corporate power. Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed. Since my argument is that unions are legally prohibited from exercising their full power as they would in a free market, then that means unionization rates should decrease because people aren't going to pay money for something that doesn't help them. Which is why the WV teachers had a wildcat strike - illegal actions were more effective than being in a union. [1] Personally, I think it's more an example of Brandolini's law than a Gish Gallop - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...