If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
As we discussed previously, labor unions are not only consistent with free market principles, but in fact, are economically beneficial, because they perform essential purposes necessary for a free society - the right of association and to coordinate for legitimate purposes, as well as, providing a natural market alternative to socialism's barrel of a gun.
As the economics of our country today look dire - in no small thanks to the shenanigans of government meddling in the mortgage market, the insatiable political desire for money, and the Federal Reserve acting as an enabler with the never-ending printing press - many large industries, who employ hundreds of thousands of people, are looking directly into the eye of the grim reaper.
The crisis in Detroit's auto industry is shining a bright light on many things, including poor management and arbitrary government rules. But what is most revealing, is the close-up, magnified view of the existing distrust between the auto companies and the union - the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), an international union. This cynicism has brought the entire industry, from top to bottom, to its knees.
As you hear and read about this situation, you've surely come across the "knee-jerk" reaction that we must abolish the unions, the faster the better! But I'm here to say it's not time kill unions, but to restore them to their proper role in society instead - allowing individuals to freely associate and coordinate for purposes of negotiation.
The threat to both our economy and the cause of liberty, that we all must accept, is the economic and political power that has been concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of union leaders. And it's not the hard-working members that ultimately gave them this power, but the back-door deals with politicians, and the legislation those politicians passed. So let's throw that tired, old argument out, that criticising Big Labor equals anti-labor. Besides, in reality, that argument benefits only one small group - the union leaders.
Big Labor spent more than $450 billion on the last election, about $100 billion more than one of the actual candidates, Sen. John McCain. When a handful of people start throwing around this kind of money, let's be real here ... it can only lead to trouble. It exerts inappropriate influence on political campaigns, and breeds corruption in public and union officials. Make no mistake about it, this is about power ... and it ain't no "power to the people," that's for sure.
Looking back at the 2004 presidential election, the UAW "bosses" endorsed John Kerry for president, despite the fact that over 40% of UAW members historically voting Republican (Detroit News, 2004). In other words, instead of using the dues members pay them for representation (the job workers pay them to do), the union "bosses" instead, took their members money and spent it in direct opposition of them. This is the antithesis of representation, which is what members are paying them to do!
Misconduct such as this, is nothing less than political extortion, legalized (of course) by you guessed it ... the politicians who happily accept those so-called "contributions!"
The decision on which political campaigns hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent (taken by compulsion from the rank and file), is not reached by asking the individual workers, or by democratic means such as a vote, or even a poll ... The decisions are made exclusively by the small handful of Big Labor "bosses." Quite a political privilege indeed ... for the "bosses," that is.
In contrast of these "bosses," the workers are deprived of his/her right to decide how to spend (or not to spend) their own money in the political process. Not only is this a serious denial of liberty and invasion of private property, but a question of morality and justice as well.
The money spent by these Big Labor "bosses" on political purposes, is generated purely by force (compulsory union dues). Union members do not get a choice! The only way for a member to avoid paying monies that ultimately get spent on the political process, instead of on the legitimate bargaining representation paid for, is to forfeit his/her job. And that my friends, is not justice ... that's tyranny.
Let's put it this way.
Is it acceptable to take the money of a long-time registered-Democrat union member, by confiscatory means, to spend on a Republican campaign?
There is no legitimate reason for either labor unions or corporations to participate in politics. The only way to achieve a government "by the people, for the people," is to distribute the political power as widely as possible. The most effective means of accomplishing this, is to limit financial contributions for political purposes to individuals only.
In the early twentieth century, the rapid rate of growth that created these new, massive corporations, sometimes ended up concentrating economic power into the hands of only a few corporate managers via monopoly. Congress responded to this with anti-monopoly laws such as the Sherman Act. These same laws, however, have never been applied to labor unions. If it's wrong for a single corporation to dominate a market and dictate prices, isn't it also wrong for one labor union to dominate an industry and dictate terms of employment?
Just as the corporate monopoly power ultimately concentrated economic power into the hands of a few executives, the monopoly power Big Labor commands over entire industries, concentrates economic power into the hands of only a few "bosses." Today, unions that exert this kind of power, have become much more than a bargaining unit for the workers. They have instead, become de facto-socialist governments, with a handful of dictators at the top.
No one argues in support of allowing corporations to act collusively (not counting the Congressional-driven collusion in the mortgage market), and the same reasoning applies to not allowing labor unions to act collusively either. Union monopolies cause the same market distortions that corporate monopolies do - unrestrained power in the hands of a select few.
The solution to this distortion of the markets, and to return the economic power to the workers, is to have unions be required to deal with individual employers only. So union members who work at Ford would have a union that deals specifically with Ford, and union members at General Motors (GM), would be represented by a union who deals strictly with GM, etc.
By ending the monopoly power that allows a handful of union "bosses" to wield such massive economic power, the union members will achieve greater (and better) representation with the company who actually employs them. Under this natural arrangement, the union leaders are beholden to a smaller group of bosses (workers), who can keep a better eye on them, making sure they're getting the personal representation they deserve.
The third item to address is the inalienable right of free association. If people have the right to associate, then they also have the right not to associate. This digs right into the heart of individual liberty and freedom in general. A society that advocates compulsory unionism, without regard to a man/woman's personal conscience and reason, is not a free society. And we have thousands of years of history, teaching us, a society that is not free, will not prosper.
Union shops that discriminate against others by demanding union membership, that if they refuse, cannot have a job, violates that person's exercise of freedom. Compulsory unionism steals from the individual the inherent right to make decisions for themselves. Ultimately, this denial of freedom leads to contempt. And contempt builds wedges where bridges are needed and eventually breaks society apart.
A union member may lobby a non-union worker to join, but it's an entirely a different thing to take away his/her right to choice and free association. Here's the thing ... I believe (and logic dictates), that most men/women will happily join and support a union that deserves their support. If the union brings them measurable benefit, why wouldn't they join?
The only reason I can find for a union to demand membership, is because the union has no means to justify the dues workers pay for the membership. And let's face it, who do those dues benefit the most? The handful of union "bosses," that's who.
Justice for the American Worker:
1. Limit political contributions to individuals only. There is no reason for corporations and unions to participate in the political process. The only logical result one can expect from allowing corporations and unions to participate in the political process, is corruption.
2. Break-up the monopolies. Whether it be a corporate monopoly or union monopoly, they only result in distorting the markets, thereby concentrating great economic power into the hands of only a select few. Especially when these monopolies encompass territories that exceed our national borders.
3. Champion free association! Our country was born by a revolution, to restore political and economic powers to the hands where they belong - each and every individual.
Instead of laws that protect the violation of a man/woman's right to free association and personal choice, we need laws that protect their right to freely associate and make decisions on their own.
*The Austrian monopoly argument is irrelevant to this discussion.
