Any Libertarian who supports "right to work" is a hypocrite

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Prices aren't being manipulated, they are being negotiated. Your missing some very key attributes here.

Do you know what "manipulate" means? Do you know what "scarcity" means? Do you know what "market" means, in this context?

Let's say a company buys all of a commodity up that other companies need in order to run. Is that company guilty of manipulating the market for that commodity, or is the price they offer merely considered part of a negotiation?

 

[freeRadical]

Do you know what "manipulate" means? Do you know what "scarcity" means? Do you know what "market" means, in this context?

Let's say a company buys all of a commodity up that other companies need in order to run. Is that company guilty of manipulating the market for that commodity, or is the price they offer merely considered part of a negotiation?

They don't care. Labor is scared remember ? Capital is evil. It's okay for labor to collude and set prices but it's not okay for capital to collude and set prices. Labor = good. Capital = bad. Got it?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Of course labor unions are monopolies. They have a monopoly on labor. With labor unions, workers collude and set prices. They keep out competition and restrict supply to raise price. You do know that labor unions were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act right?

How is it a monopoly if the owner can fire the entire workforce and hire an entirely new staff? Sorry but that is hot garbage.

 

[freeRadical]

How is it a monopoly if the owner can fire the entire workforce and hire an entirely new staff? Sorry but that is hot garbage.

Yes.... He can break the union, usually at great cost, but that still doesn't mean the union doesn't have monopoly power. Monopoly power is a spectrum.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Yes.... He can break the union, usually at great cost, but that still doesn't mean the union doesn't have monopoly power. Monopoly power is a spectrum.

Oh so now its on the spectrum of a monopoly? This argument seems to get weaker and weaker..... Let's expand the definition so we can call it the things we want to call it.

 

[freeRadical]

Oh so now its on the spectrum of a monopoly? This argument seems to get weaker and weaker..... Let's expand the definition so we can call it the things we want to call it.

It's not getting weaker..... What do monopolies do or, more generally, what do economic agents with monopoly power do?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

It's not getting weaker..... What do monopolies do or, more generally, what do economic agents with monopoly power do?

They create laws that disallow people from forming unions to gain negotiating power for services rendered away from those who are for unjust enrichment.

 

[freeRadical]

They create laws that disallow people from forming unions to gain negotiating power for services rendered away from those who are for unjust enrichment.

Nice try... But no. How do economic agents create laws again?

You sound angry and very antagonistic. It's pointless to try and have an intelligent debate with you.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

How is it a monopoly if the owner can fire the entire workforce and hire an entirely new staff? Sorry but that is hot garbage.

An employer can't fire the entire union and start over. Union contracts specify the source of labor from one source only - it's illegal to hire anyone else. And these agreements remove firing power from outside of the union. So, no, employers can't just get a new workforce. It's even illegal to threaten to close the business in the event of unionization.

Such protections are very, very illegal when done by anything other than a labor union.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I agree with the OP. When you agree to work for a business you agree to its wages, to its rules and regulations as part of working for them.

When employers don't want union rules to even be rules, but pro-union laws and arbitrators force the employer to sign as agreeing with those rules, there is a problem with your stance. A buyer and seller want to exchange. A third party is given the privilege by law to butt in and impose rules on that exchange, extracting resources from both. This effect is parasitic.

The same thing goes for when you work at a place in which you pay union dues, and those union dues are in place to pay for all the benefits you get for working for an organization that negotiates for you with a larger negotiating position. This is the government saying we want to destroy the power of previously negotiated contracts.

Collective bargaining contracts expire every 1-3 years. Employers often do not want to renew any union contracts, but the law forces them to do so. The whole "good faith" notion pertaining to this is illusory because of the mandates buried in pro-union labor laws, when the law forces one of the parties to sit and negotiate and ultimately accept terms it does not whatsoever want to accept.

 

[Neomalthusian]

They create laws that disallow people from forming unions

I'm not accustomed to seeing comments from you that stoop to this level of ridiculousness.

Labor unions were explicitly exempted from anti-monopoly laws. Closed shop unions declare themselves as the sole seller of all labor covered under those agreements. They have plain and simple monopoly power over those positions.

...to gain negotiating power for services rendered away from those who are for unjust enrichment.

Unions have declined steeply in the private sector and are most prevalent in the public sector where there is no potential for "unjust enrichment." The public sector has natural monopoly power and guaranteed revenue using tax powers. Public sector unions are not preventing their employers from getting unjustly rich. There is no such opportunity. Public sector unions leech off of revenues that are mandated by law (taxes and utilities sold by natural monopolies).

 

[RGacky3]

A lot of things exist organically but government clamps down on it to make society better off.

So you believe that is the role of government?

They're unfavorable to all of society. Why did the US pass Sherman over 100 years ago? That effectively "banned a certain type of contract." Are you saying the US should repeal Sherman?

Sherman wasn't a libertarian and neither am I.

By definition of "closed shop," yes they are. No other seller of the type of labor covered in a "closed shop" arrangement can sell it to that buyer. That means the buyer of that labor has one choice for purchasing that labor. That creates a monopoly situation.

No they are a NOT a monopoly, because they are not the only Source of labor within a certain area ... anymore than a supplier making a deal With a distributer to only distribute what they supply is creating a "monopoly."

Yes they do. Unions are organizations of workers. Workers sell labor. That is what they do.

That is logically unsound ... a Church can be made up of Christian human beings who all eat, that doesn't mean the Church eats.

Yep. And that's what they do. They make themselves a sole supplier of whatever types of labor come under their control. This is especially the case in the public sector, which itself is a natural monopoly. These markets cannot get their municipal services from anyone outside the union.

They do that by contract ... i.e. free market mechanisms.

You didn't comprehend what was said. Any qualified seller of a particular type of labor should be able to sell it. They should not be forced to join a union as a condition of being able to sell their labor.

They arn't required, they can sell to someone else that doesn'nt have those contracts in Place.

Yes they do sell labor, this was established above. And no, it is not a free market agreement because our laws force employers to negotiate with unions. A free market would not compel people to do business with one another when they don't want to. If it were a free market when it comes to unions, employers would simply decide never to speak to unions or hire anyone belonging to one. For unions to exist, law needs to be written forcing employers to submit to their demands. And that's what we have today.

No ... they don't force employers to netgotiate With unions ...

Alaska Statutes 23.40.070 states "(2) requiring public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;" LINK

So much for your "free market agreement." It isn't really a free agreement when one party is FORCED by statute to negotiate with the other and FORCED to enter into written agreements. Unions require this element of force. They have to have it. They die without it. The law has to coerce employers (which in this case is the public at large) to say they agree.

And this is precisely where your thread falls apart. Libertarians do not believe in government writing laws that exert force over individual liberties in this manner. Unions and their tactics are 100% counter to what libertarians believe.

This is for PUBLIC employess ... this is an employer telling it's employees what it requires of them before they get a job or get paid .... that isn't coercion on private employers, like what a right to work Law is.

No it's not. Unions are far more prevalent in the public sector. Discussions of unions should center around the public sector and the private sector should be a footnote to it.

Whether a Law is just or not, doesn't depend on who it effects more or less.

BUt if the Public sector doesn't want to have a closed shop, they can not sign the deal With the union, they don't need to ban a certain contract ... unless of course you think it's the governments role to get involved in private contract.

 

[RGacky3]

If the alternative is a strike, how is that not FORCE? "Cave to our demands, or lose your business. Our way, or the highway." The state supports this by allowing and supporting stipulations like labor agreement fines for union laborers who break a strike (forcing strikes as unanimous participation events) by votes that do not, by law, have to be unanimous. These fines are enforceable and collectible in court, and they are severe. Just one more way in which a union contract seeks to prevent free transactions between people.

It isn't force by definition ... you loose Your buisiness because of market forces ... they arn't "preventing" you from doing anythin, they arn't threatening violence ... not going to work is NOT violence.

the state supports this by ... notice you're wording ... "allowing" .... so you're complaining, that the governmetn doesn't get involved in the economy ENOUGH.

When the state uses its monopoly on force to enforce the restriction of free transactions between private individuals, then that state is acting outside the scope of a Night Watchman state.

Again, you can't contract with illegal stipulations. For example, a union contract cannot specify that only white people will be hired by the union. It doesn't matter if the business signs it or not, that contract is not enforceable because that is an illegal stipulation. If the state were to come in and enforce such a contract with such a stipulation, that state would be acting outside of its scope, according to a minarchist. When you remove the threat of state enacted force, sure, go nuts, sign whatever document you want, but if you have unenforceable (or unethical or immoral) stipulations, that contract shouldn't exist and won't without some kind of outside help.

And that, in a nutshell, is the moral basis for Libertarianism.

A contract deciding to have a closed shop is a free transaction between private individuals ....

What is and is not an illigal stipulation is the very thing we are discussing here.

If you're saying that the government should NOT enforce contract, or should only enforce contracst that would exist without state enforcement ... great, you've just gotten rid of absolute property rights and thus capitalism.

The state uses force when labor boards slap fines on businesses or when courts order union incurred fines to be paid by employees. And picket lines can be quite physical. There is a long history of physical intimidation and physical violence (on behalf of both unions and business who try to bust them... but that's a chicken-and-egg argument as to how each one started).

So your claim is that no CEO has EVER contributed to overall market growth, streamlined logistics, increased efficiency, cut red tape, increased market share, or any of a hundred other metrics that provide value to the company that hires them? That is your claim? CEOs literally exist to "pull profit" out of a company?

Oh not at all .... that isn't my claim, my claim is that isn't what determines their pay or what they are paid for.

But what they don't actually do .. is produce ... increased efficiency means increasing the profit, i.e. extracting more from actual productive forces.

I'll put it to you this way, every CEO dies tomorrow, society will go on, a little confusion in the begining, but we'd be ok.

Every plumber dies tomorrow, we'd be in deep deep ****.

 

[RGacky3]

There are exactly two definitions of monopoly:

1. A board game that makes you hate your friends, and

2. The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service, i.e. a single seller

Single sellers (much like monopsonistic single buyers) are price makers, operating outside of the normal confines of market pressure by controlling all of the influence concerning a single good or service (all of the supply, or all of the demand). Price takers are what everyone else is - they deal with the price the market sets through supply and demand. Individual workers are price takers in that the market decides what a given wage is for a given job. If a skill set is in high demand and low supply, the wage is high because many companies are competing for that individual laborer; likewise, if a skill set is in high supply but low demand, then companies are not going to have to offer higher wage to attract those employees. Unions serve to restrict individual laborers, thereby increasing the scarcity of their product (the quantity of labor for any given skill set). This restriction is absolute when a (state protected) union is allowed to force an employer to buy labor only from them in order to return the factory to productivity, turning them into a government sponsored and protected monopoly on labor for that specific factory (or, sometimes, an entire industry in a region), protected by the use of state force.

The term "natural monopoly" deals with things that are unfeasibly large for a private solution. Mainly, this is infrastructure. Besides roads, which are *almost always free to travel, infrastructure means utilities: electric, gas, phone, cable, etc. The state has an interest in ensuring the provision of utilities (which totally conforms to libertarian ideology), but the very nature of setting up utilities in an area precludes competition from a utilitarian standpoint. The state (and its people) are NOT served by different gage wire, crisscrossing lines, different connectors and hookups, and what have you. After infrastructure is laid, and a period of (usually) government set price controls for investor payback, these natural monopoly companies are often broken up into smaller private companies by the state, after established practices and codes are made industry standard and law.

Alcoa was an "organic" monopoly in that it came about naturally, i.e. without the use of coercion or intentional tactics designed to keep competition from entering the field, but is not a "natural monopoly" by definition because aluminum production itself is not a utility. The state has a more vested interest in competitive practices that keeps the price of aluminum down, which is exactly how Alcoa got its monopoly in the first place - they increased their economy of scale in order to meet a wildly growing demand. But at any point during this period of growth, any competitor could have entered the market on a lower margin than Alcoa and provided higher priced aluminum and been able to sell it for a profit, just not as much profit. The only thing keeping Alcoa from producing more aluminum at any given time was an overlap between supply-driven price and a market that couldn't afford the increased capacity for only the discount it would have offered.

Except they are NOT monopolies because there are other sellers of labor, if have an ice cream shop, and I make a deal With a Dairy farm to only buy from them, that Dairy farm is not a monopoly.

When it comes to the means of production, the ones who deserve the most say are the ones with the greatest stake to lose. The night janitor at a Ford plant shouldn't get a vote on what or how the factory produces, because his area of expertise is keeping it clean. He knows nothing about making cars, nor procuring materials, nor managing the people who do the work. The people who decide how much should be spent on what should be the people those decisions affect most - the people who own (and control) that money. These are just simple facts about life that I realize you find unfortunate.

Oh, so the shareholder in wallstreet who probably doesn't know anything about the Company other than it's numbers on the market, should have more of a say than the actual workers who make the cars?

And talk about stake ... the shareholder will probably sell his Stock within a week, on average he'll hold if for less. The worker's entire livelyhood Depends on his job.

 

[RGacky3]

:shrug: libertarians believe in a fair playing field. If you are willing to agree to allow businesses to refuse to allow their workers to unionize, I'm sure they'd be willing to allow closed union shops

Buisiness DO refuse to allow their workers to unionize ... all the time. Tell me when union busting has ever been enforced in the last 30 years.

 

[cpwill]

Buisiness DO refuse to allow their workers to unionize ... all the time. Tell me when union busting has ever been enforced in the last 30 years.

Show me where businesses have refused to allow their workers to unionize and made agreement not to advocate for or vote for a union a condition of employment.

 

[Jerry]

A right to work Law is a government regulation, banning a specific type of private contract between employers and employees .... it's literally the government coercing private buisinesses and private Citizens and banning them from making private individual deals.

If you meet a libertarian ask them if they support right to work laws, if they do, they arn't libertarians, they are plutocracy apologists ...

Right to work just means you don't have to join a union to keep your job after 90 days. You can still join the union if you want. It doesn't ban anything, infact it removes the ban on non-union contracts.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So you believe that is the role of government?

That's not just a belief. That is a role of government. Some things which exist naturally are not tolerable in any civilized society.

Sherman wasn't a libertarian and neither am I.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was a law that prohibited monopolies and cartels. It was later put into law that labor unions specifically do not have to abide by it.

No they are a NOT a monopoly, because they are not the only Source of labor within a certain area ... anymore than a supplier making a deal With a distributer to only distribute what they supply is creating a "monopoly."

To be a monopoly seller of something is to be the only seller. When people have one choice from which to buy their electricity (a municipally owned electric utility), that is an example of a natural monopoly, and when a union is the sole and exclusive seller of worker labor to that utility, there is a monopoly scenario. The people in that area have no choice but to pay electric rates that cover whatever the union demands.

They do that by contract ... i.e. free market mechanisms.

A free market includes a right not to buy something, or even negotiate with a buyer or seller. Laws in this country force public entities to negotiate and ultimately agree to enter into union contracts. That is, until or unless the people wake up and pass Right To Work legislation.

No ... they don't force employers to netgotiate With unions ...

Yes they do. AS 23.40.070: " (2)*requiring public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;"

This is for PUBLIC employess ... this is an employer telling it's employees what it requires of them before they get a job or get paid .... that isn't coercion on private employers, like what a right to work Law is.

Right To Work coerces no one. Everyone has options. Want to join a union? You can. Don't want to? Don't have to.

I'd compromise with you and agree that we can start by implementing Right To Work nationwide ONLY with respect to public employment.

BUt if the Public sector doesn't want to have a closed shop, they can not sign the deal With the union,

Not in my state they can't. I cited the exact statute with the exact language above.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Except they are NOT monopolies because there are other sellers of labor, if have an ice cream shop, and I make a deal With a Dairy farm to only buy from them, that Dairy farm is not a monopoly.

But closed shop contracts in closed shop states specifically preclude any sellers of labor in that shop other than the union.

If you have an ice cream shop, and the dairy farm pickets your business and doesn't let deliveries get through until you agree to hire workers only from the dairy farm at a cost that is higher than you can get labor for otherwise on the free market, that would be a more accurate example of how a union runs. It would also constitute a monopoly on a service (labor) as you would not be allowed to get that service (labor) from any other seller of it, including private individuals.

Oh, so the shareholder in wallstreet who probably doesn't know anything about the Company other than it's numbers on the market, should have more of a say than the actual workers who make the cars?

And talk about stake ... the shareholder will probably sell his Stock within a week, on average he'll hold if for less. The worker's entire livelyhood Depends on his job.

Shareholders have votes. And yes, if they want to go to the meeting to vote on the next CEO to run the company based on what kind of return they think they should expect with that CEO's particular set of skills, their voice should be listened to, weighted according to how many shares they control. If the night janitor wanted to have a say in who the CEO is and thus the overall direction of the company, that night janitor should buy some shares.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

A contract deciding to have a closed shop is a free transaction between private individuals ....

A contract between industry giants to merge so they can effectively control the price of their goods/services is a free transaction between private individuals, too. It also results in a monopoly, just like a union contract. How it differs, though, is that it is not federally protected under the law. To the contrary, antitrust laws are vehemently enforced in this country. I am a libertarian, but I agree with some antitrust legislation. That fits within the scope of the state according to some libertarian philosophy. No hypocrisy here. The hypocrisy lies on the side of organized labor who think monopolies are wrong, but only when someone else does it.

 

[RGacky3]

Show me where businesses have refused to allow their workers to unionize and made agreement not to advocate for or vote for a union a condition of employment.

Wallmart ... for example.

 

[RGacky3]

Right to work just means you don't have to join a union to keep your job after 90 days. You can still join the union if you want. It doesn't ban anything, infact it removes the ban on non-union contracts.

No state anywhere has, or has ever had a ban on non-union contracts .... Sorry that doesn't exist.

Right to work Law is a BAN on a specific type of private contract.

i.e. a contract where the Company only hires union members or those who don't join the union pay an agency fee. Which is a PRIVATE market contract.

Right to work makes that contract illigal.

 

[RGacky3]

That's not just a belief. That is a role of government. Some things which exist naturally are not tolerable in any civilized society.

So it IS the role of the government to interfere in the market when there is a higher social good?

The Sherman Antitrust Act was a law that prohibited monopolies and cartels. It was later put into law that labor unions specifically do not have to abide by it.

A Union is not a monopoly or a Cartel ... a Union doesn't SELL anything, it isn't a Company.

As a libertarian though wouldn't you be against the Antitrust act?

To be a monopoly seller of something is to be the only seller. When people have one choice from which to buy their electricity (a municipally owned electric utility), that is an example of a natural monopoly, and when a union is the sole and exclusive seller of worker labor to that utility, there is a monopoly scenario. The people in that area have no choice but to pay electric rates that cover whatever the union demands.

Except they are NOT the exclusive seller of worker labor in any area .... there is no town (that I know of) where every worker is a member of the exact same union.

A free market includes a right not to buy something, or even negotiate with a buyer or seller. Laws in this country force public entities to negotiate and ultimately agree to enter into union contracts. That is, until or unless the people wake up and pass Right To Work legislation.

What laws?

Yes they do. AS 23.40.070: " (2)*requiring public employers to negotiate with and enter into written agreements with employee organizations on matters of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;"

PUBLIC employers ARE the government ... it isn't the governmetn forcing private Companies to do anything, it's the government saying it itself will do something.

Right To Work coerces no one. Everyone has options. Want to join a union? You can. Don't want to? Don't have to.

I'd compromise with you and agree that we can start by implementing Right To Work nationwide ONLY with respect to public employment.

Oh it does, if you make a private contract With a union that the Company will collect agency fees, the government comes in and arrests you.

Not in my state they can't. I cited the exact statute with the exact language above.

In Your State they decided that they would take that deal, again, it's the government deciding what the government will do, not banning Things for the private sector.

 

[RGacky3]

But closed shop contracts in closed shop states specifically preclude any sellers of labor in that shop other than the union.

If you have an ice cream shop, and the dairy farm pickets your business and doesn't let deliveries get through until you agree to hire workers only from the dairy farm at a cost that is higher than you can get labor for otherwise on the free market, that would be a more accurate example of how a union runs. It would also constitute a monopoly on a service (labor) as you would not be allowed to get that service (labor) from any other seller of it, including private individuals.

There is no such thing as a "closed shop state" unless by that you mean a state which allows unions and management to make contracts without the nanny state coming in.

As for Your example ... if the Dairy farm isn't actually physically stopping someone from doing something, other than just not sending the shop their Dairy Products ... that IS A FREE MARKET ACTION.

The government is not doing anything, it's 2 private Companies deciding what they do and do not do With their Companies. If the Dairy farm doesn't want to send the shop their Product unless the shop fulfills certain conditions, why do you want the nanny state to come in and stop them? It's the free market.

Shareholders have votes. And yes, if they want to go to the meeting to vote on the next CEO to run the company based on what kind of return they think they should expect with that CEO's particular set of skills, their voice should be listened to, weighted according to how many shares they control. If the night janitor wanted to have a say in who the CEO is and thus the overall direction of the company, that night janitor should buy some shares.

That isn't an argument for it being a good system, that's just a description of how it Works now.

A contract between industry giants to merge so they can effectively control the price of their goods/services is a free transaction between private individuals, too. It also results in a monopoly, just like a union contract. How it differs, though, is that it is not federally protected under the law. To the contrary, antitrust laws are vehemently enforced in this country. I am a libertarian, but I agree with some antitrust legislation. That fits within the scope of the state according to some libertarian philosophy. No hypocrisy here. The hypocrisy lies on the side of organized labor who think monopolies are wrong, but only when someone else does it.

a Union is not a monopoly, UNLESS every worker in a town or area is a member of ONE Union ...

A union contract is not a monopoly, any more than a store that only buys from one supplier by contract, is subject to monopoly ... you're missusing the term monopoly.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

As it turns out "right to work" laws has its roots in racist ideology and little to do with freedom and libertarian hogwash:

As “Right To Work” becomes law in Wisconsin, a reminder of its inventor’s racist past | PandoDaily