Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anti-Union Ads

Rate this topic


K-Mac

Recommended Posts

As to employers and employees, ask how much would a businessman earn if he could not get anyone to work for him. All he could do is sell the labor of his own hands. Employees are a force multiplier (assuming they are competent) for their employer.

Yes, that is so. But a wealth creator is less dependent on labor than labor is dependent on him. Take the example given in Atlas Shrugged. When Dagny meets the strikers, he finds them capable of producing for their own needs. While those outside cannot even do that much without the Carsons, and Wyatts, and Galts, and d'Anconnia's.

Imagine a skilled jewler who can create intricate, beautiful pieces that sell for high prices. He can do well enough working on his own. he can do better hiring less-skilled jewlers to work under his direction. But he can mannage on his own, while the less-skilled cannot even do well without him.

So yes, both sides are valuable to each other. Both sides benefit from each other. Both sides can accmopliSh much more together than they can apart. But labor depends more on the wealth creators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A strike is a rational means of pressuring an employer. You shut down his production indefinitely.

Now, suppose there were no laws against firing strikers. Few employers would fire all the labor force, or even a portion of it. Unless your business hires only unskilled workers who don't need any sort of experience, you'll have a hard time hiring enough people to replace all the strikers.

Of course it would depend on market conditions. If unemployment is high, you could conceivably find enough skilled replacements for many fields. If unemployemnt is low, you'll have a hard time even filling vacancies, never mind replacing all your employees (hell, I recall us hanging on to mediocre employees for months because we couldn't find anyone better to replace them). So even without laws protecting the strikers' jobs, strikes would still exist.

A strike can kill a company. It's happened. When you shut down you not only loose income, you loose customers. they will go to your competitors to get what they need. Some may come back, some won't. You may loose enough market sahre to have to downsize, or to close down altogether, and that won't benefit the striking workers one bit. the risks of striking go beyond temporary loss of pay or, under better laws, being fired and replaced.

D'kian, dealing with the workers right to strike it is the intimidation and harassment that I have a problem with. I also have a problem with laws that tell an employer who he can or can not fire during said strike.

Yes, you are right, it would not make sense (most of the time) for an employer to fire his skilled labour, but that option must be left open to him to make on a rational and selfish assessment of his business and his situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Producers do not just produce. They produce for trade. That means there are others out there.

This means making other people the primary purpose of your life and work, which is extremely contra-Objectivism. Inventors may be happy to trade with other people, but they produce things because they want to produce them. Trade is a secondary: if someone can achieve no benefit from a particular line of work they will continue to invent for their own use and enjoyment. An inventor with no market is simply someone who stops production at the limit of his own personal use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yes, both sides are valuable to each other. Both sides benefit from each other. Both sides can accmopliSh much more together than they can apart. But labor depends more on the wealth creators.

Therein is the "magic" of the market economy which depends on the specialization of labor. Everyone, except those afflicted with physical disease and deficiency not of their choosing, can do -something- well enough that they can earn some of their keep. The market economy provides the matrix and the context where in those with a skill and a level of competence in exercising that skill can find employment. If such folks are craftsmen, then can sell their product at some price. If they perform a service then they can find someone who will buy the service at an acceptable price.

To be sure the overall level of the economy is driven by the most creative and inventive among us. It took a Michael Faraday to discover the principles of the electric motor. He got only a fraction of the value of his invention, but without the likes of Faraday we would still be using waterwheels or crude steam engines.

So we are all dependent (in some overall sense) on the folks who create the technology that prospers us. On the other hand we are all value creators at some level of performance, so our wage also depends on -us-, what skills we have or are acquiring and how well we exercise those skills.

I reject the view that our society consists of one percent genius creators and ninety nine percent ballast that merely live off the crumbs that their betters throw their way. That is the kind of thinking that is more in line with feudalism than with modern industrial capitalism. I think the majority in our society are useful and productive at some level of performance and that the law of supply and demand will provide wages (or income) commensurate with our skills and performance levels. While it is true that there are more folks who are voluntarily useless than there ought to be (that is the welfare state for you), I believe, even so, such folk are in the minority. I think if we did away with or vastly reduced the welfare operations in our society many of those currently taking handouts would be afforded the opportunity to earn an honest living and most of those would jump at the chance. I respect any man who pulls his own weight and does not expect to be carried as a noble being.

As for labor unions, to the extent that they operate as employment agents and bring together qualified workers with those who wish to employ them, I have no objection whatsoever. There is nothing dishonorable with engaging the services of an agent. As for labor unions run by racketeers who extort wealth from producers and then screw (and corrupt) the people they are "representing", to hell with them and the politicians who make them possible.

Also think of this. Without an Eddy Willers to do the detail work and minutia, how productive would Dagny Taggart have been. She would have had to spend her time doing stuff which was well below her talent and skill level. In short, without Eddy, Dagny would have had to waste some of her precious time.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strike is a rational means of pressuring an employer. You shut down his production indefinitely.

Maybe. Or it may be that there are plenty of people around looking for jobs and are willing to work at the wages you're offering. A strike is only a threat if you truly *can't* replace your workforce at the wages you're offering. A strike can be a tool if an employer is offering wages below market value--he'll realize it quickly when he can't hire replacement workers. If the strikers demand too much, however, they should find themselves out of a job.

Harassment, intimidation, bullying and other union tactics are not part of a proper strike, they are enabled and promoted by laws that hogtie employers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also think of this. Without an Eddy Willers to do the detail work and minutia, how productive would Dagny Taggart have been. She would have had to spend her time doing stuff which was well below her talent and skill level. In short, without Eddy, Dagny would have had to waste some of her precious time.

Precious is not the same as infinitely valuable, however. If Eddy (or any other worker) demands more money than their work is worth, they should find themselves out of a job while someone with more sense takes their position. You've switched your argument from "unions are necessary so that workers can get promoted" to "unions may be useful in certain contexts".

I'm skilled labor but I have no assurance that I could survive purely based on my own knowledge and work. Without a factory or office to work in, my skills are useless. I don't consider myself ballast, but I'm not a real wealth-generator, either, because I consume most of what I produce. In my view the population consists of a small percentage of "super" wealth generators (people who produce more than they could ever conceivably consume under any circumstances) that gradually scales through decreasing degrees of "I produce more than I consume" until you get down to the break-even stage: people who are just *barely* self-supporting. Anyone who is not self-supporting is economic ballast, and I doubt it's more than 10% of the population even in the worst of times.

Take away the "super" wealth generators, though, and the percentage of the population who can't support themselves rapidly increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are right, it would not make sense (most of the time) for an employer to fire his skilled labour, but that option must be left open to him to make on a rational and selfish assessment of his business and his situation.

Sure. There are plenty of measures an employer can take short of firing all his work force. He could fire some of them, or the union leaders. He could fire all and offer to re-hire only some on better terms. He could fire the ones he's found replacements for. And more.

But most employers faced with a strike will negotiate. It's usually the fastest and less expensive solution. Assuming, naturally, the employees want to negotiate in good faith and are not asking for impossibilities or absurdities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject the view that our society consists of one percent genius creators and ninety nine percent ballast that merely live off the crumbs that their betters throw their way.

Not ballast, no. But the one percent carry the rest of us, or at least make our lives much better.

Productive work does not mean only the creation of new ideas, it doesn't mean only inovation. A janitor that keeps the place clean so the workers can work is being productive, that is he is adding something to the productive chain. But without the inovators and the creators, there would be nothing for the rest of us to do. before there were farms, there was a man who discovered agriculture (figuratively speaking, of course, as agriculture arose in many palces many times). Before there were light-bulb manufacturing plants there was Thomas Edison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. Or it may be that there are plenty of people around looking for jobs and are willing to work at the wages you're offering. A strike is only a threat if you truly *can't* replace your workforce at the wages you're offering.

And that depends on too many factors, from the skills involved, to the condition job market, to an employers inventory of finished goods, etc etc. A strike is a potent threat for most employers.

If you have an ice cream parlor paying minnimum wage to teenagers at the height of summer, you can replace them all with as qualified employees is two or maybe three minutes. But getting a good seamstress, a steam press operator, an airline pilot, can take anwyhere from days to weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D'kian:

I liked your post #30 it showed that it is possible to negotiate collectively in a rational and just way.

However I disagree with this:

A strike is a rational means of pressuring an employer.

What rational employer needs pressuring? What rational employee would want to threaten a rational employer?

If an employer is irrational why would you want to work for him in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject the view that our society consists of one percent genius creators and ninety nine percent ballast that merely live off the crumbs that their betters throw their way. That is the kind of thinking that is more in line with feudalism than with modern industrial capitalism. I think the majority in our society are useful and productive at some level of performance and that the law of supply and demand will provide wages (or income) commensurate with our skills and performance levels. While it is true that there are more folks who are voluntarily useless than there ought to be (that is the welfare state for you), I believe, even so, such folk are in the minority.

Great post, well done. I too reject the idea that the 1 percent of the population have god-like capabilities that we all must rely on for our salvation. It takes genius, drive and hard work, but fortunate circumstances also play a huge role in who ends up being a super-success. Innovators don't work in a vacuum; they exist in a continuum of other people working towards similar goals, feeding off each other's achievements and ideas. Eventually you read about Charles Darwin in a history book, but you don't read about all the men who expressed similar ideas on evolution much earlier than he did, and who died in obscurity. So I don't think any one man is infinitely valuable, in a historical context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D'kian:

What rational employer needs pressuring? What rational employee would want to threaten a rational employer?

Pressuring is not the same as threatening. A strike, meaning withdrawing one's labor, is not a use of force. A rational employer may act irrationally on a given issue. The judgment of what's fair may differ among rational people. That justifies a strike, among other reasons.

If an employer is irrational why would you want to work for him in the first place?

In any kind of market choices my be varied or not, but they are finite. In a job market with high unemployment, choices for a job seeker are very limited. You may wind up working for a highly irrational boss, because you need the money too badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strike is a means of offering evidence of your assertion that the workforce is being underpaid. It is not a means of *pressure*, it is a persuasive demonstration. Even perfectly rational people can fail to be convinced unless they are presented with absolute evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, well done. I too reject the idea that the 1 percent of the population have god-like capabilities that we all must rely on for our salvation. It takes genius, drive and hard work, but fortunate circumstances also play a huge role in who ends up being a super-success. Innovators don't work in a vacuum; they exist in a continuum of other people working towards similar goals, feeding off each other's achievements and ideas. Eventually you read about Charles Darwin in a history book, but you don't read about all the men who expressed similar ideas on evolution much earlier than he did, and who died in obscurity. So I don't think any one man is infinitely valuable, in a historical context.

Wow!

I read this yesterday and had a visceral reaction of disgust.

Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"? You are one of the villains; seriously. If these are the ideas you actually hold, then what a dim view of humanity you must have.

It takes genius, drive and hard work, but fortunate circumstances also play a huge role in who ends up being a super-success. [emphasis added]

"Fortunate circumstances" play no role whatsoever in who ends up being a super-success. It is your mind; how you train it and how you use it that determines how successful you will be.

How you must resent those whose circumstances were so much more beneficial than yours. After all, you are essentially the same as Thomas Edison, he was just fortunate to live at a time when there were so many things left to discover and invent. How little efficacy you must attribute to the mind, other's and your own.

Innovators don't work in a vacuum; they exist in a continuum of other people working towards similar goals, feeding off each other's achievements and ideas.

By definition it is the innovator who is coming up with new ideas, he is the one setting the ultimate goal and the others, who are working for him, are feeding off of his ideas.

Eventually you read about Charles Darwin in a history book, but you don't read about all the men who expressed similar ideas on evolution much earlier than he did, and who died in obscurity.

I see, Darwin is just a historical footnote. I don't suppose you'd find him in a Biology textbook. Would there even be a Biology textbook without Darwin? And by "similar" do you mean "true"?

You want us to devalue the achievement of the man who actually discovered the Theory of Evolution in favor of those who didn't? You want us to consider the noteworthiness of the obscure? Do you see a contradiction there?

So I don't think any one man is infinitely valuable, in a historical context.

Infinity is a big number but: no one? Not: Newton? Rand? Fleming? Oppenheimer? Kilby?

I too reject the idea that the 1 percent of the population have god-like capabilities that we all must rely on for our salvation.

We all must rely on ourselves, but it is bad form to spit in the face of the genius whose hard work and drive has allowed us to pursue our own happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strike, meaning withdrawing one's labor, is not a use of force.

Withdrawing one's labor is called quitting. A strike, to me, means: standing in front of someone's business with picket signs and it is a form of coercion, not only to the owner but to those who would like to replace you.

A rational employer may act irrationally on a given issue. The judgment of what's fair may differ among rational people. That justifies a strike, among other reasons.

I can find no justification for picketing a rational man whose judgement is different from yours, after all, whose judgement is the final arbiter: the business owner's or his employees'? And if he is irrational why would you want to work for him?

You may wind up working for a highly irrational boss, because you need the money too badly.

Then that is your choice.

I really don't understand: you are going to force (or at least coerce) a man into paying you what you think is appropriate for a job which you have no right to in the first place?

To me, forty men picketing outside a business is as silly as one man picketing and it is not a very productive use of one's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strike is a means of offering evidence of your assertion that the workforce is being underpaid. It is not a means of *pressure*, it is a persuasive demonstration. Even perfectly rational people can fail to be convinced unless they are presented with absolute evidence.

I should think that all of the persuasion occurred in the collective bargaining process and that once you strike a business (as defined in the post above) the persuasion is over and coercion has been employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fortunate circumstances" play no role whatsoever in who ends up being a super-success. It is your mind; how you train it and how you use it that determines how successful you will be.

Your mind and your effort have the most to do with it, yes. But random chance is a part of life, too. Some discoveries ahve been entirely fortuitous. Consider Herschell. he coulcn't afford a telescope, so he went and made his own. As it turned out, his was better than any then existing, which lead him to discover a new planet, Uranus. What if he could ahve afforded a telescope? His goal was to map out all the aky and look at everything. With a lesser instrument he may not have recognized Uranus as a planet (indeed some astronomers did see the planet on their scopes and failed to identify it).

As for inventors specifically, the invention alone sometimes is not enough. Goodyear invented a means to vulcanize rubber but he couldn't make it a commercial success (the company Goodyear is named after him, but he never had any relation with it). Edison was a huge financial success for two reasons: 1) he was a good promoter of his inventions and, 2) he focused on developing things which had a potential market value. Not every inventor is also a good businessman.

Speaking of Edison, during the course of experimenting with the light bulb he came across something he observed and named the Edison Effect. He noted it and dismissed it, as it did nothing to improve the incandescent light. Years later someone else realized the Edison Effect served to rectify a current, and went on to develop the vaccum tube.

Back to chance, Fleming discovered penicillin because his bacterial cultures got contaminated by a fungal spore, due to a window left carelessly open. The cytoskeleton of living cells was discovered because someone missadjusted a video camera coupled to a microscope. Roentgen discovered X-Rays accidentally while experimenting with cathode rays and fluorescent compounds. Chance does play a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mind and your effort have the most to do with it, yes. But random chance is a part of life, too. Some discoveries ahve been entirely fortuitous.

I maintain that it is your mind and only your mind that determines your success.

In all of the examples you cite it was the man's mind that was prepared to receive the information and do something with it. They were acting toward a goal and they had prepared themselves for their journey.

I can go with fortuitous; fortuitous only to the prepared mind. It was fortunate that mold formed in front of Fleming's eyes.

Random would be me discovering penicillin after observing mold in my college dorm room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"? You are one of the villains; seriously. If these are the ideas you actually hold, then what a dim view of humanity you must have.

I feel the same way about your outlook. It must be a helpless feeling having to wait for individual geniuses to come along to fix the world's problems. Better outlaw abortion because what if one of those babies was the next Einstein, Buffet, or Gates? How comforting it is to know that there are many many geniuses waiting in the wings should one fail, and the progress of mankind will move on regardless.

"Fortunate circumstances" play no role whatsoever in who ends up being a super-success. It is your mind; how you train it and how you use it that determines how successful you will be.

What a strange assessment of human achievement. Being smart, keeping a strong positive mind, working hard, are essential. But do you think everyone who possessed these traits became an elite 1 percenter? Read D'Kian's examples. There are millions more.

How you must resent those whose circumstances were so much more beneficial than yours. After all, you are essentially the same as Thomas Edison, he was just fortunate to live at a time when there were so many things left to discover and invent. How little efficacy you must attribute to the mind, other's and your own.

I don't resent anything or anyone, that would be irrational. It is also irrational to deny that good fortune plays a strong role in who rises to the very top of the pile.

By definition it is the innovator who is coming up with new ideas, he is the one setting the ultimate goal and the others, who are working for him, are feeding off of his ideas.

I beg to differ. Every invention is as much a product of its time and place as it is the man. Edison had many competitors that were driving him. If he were to have been killed by a speeding horse and carriage, humankind would still have developed his innovations, albeit those innovations would have occurred a small time later and in a different form.

I see, Darwin is just a historical footnote. I don't suppose you'd find him in a Biology textbook. Would there even be a Biology textbook without Darwin? And by "similar" do you mean "true"?You want us to devalue the achievement of the man who actually discovered the Theory of Evolution in favor of those who didn't? You want us to consider the noteworthiness of the obscure? Do you see a contradiction there?

Not a footnote, and not devalued; read what I said. He put the final piece together to come up with natural selection, but he did not generate the idea by himself. You seem to possess a high school history book view of history. I suggest you dig deeper into how innovations happen.

Infinity is a big number but: no one? Not: Newton? Rand? Fleming? Oppenheimer? Kilby?

You almost have to make an exception for Newton, he was pretty unique. Maybe someone who knows more on the time period would have more insight.

We all must rely on ourselves, but it is bad form to spit in the face of the genius whose hard work and drive has allowed us to pursue our own happiness.

Your deification of these men has a religious air about it. Dig into some anthropology and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all of the examples you cite it was the man's mind that was prepared to receive the information and do something with it. They were acting toward a goal and they had prepared themselves for their journey.

Sure. As I said, a number of astronomers failed to recognize Uranus as a planet even when seen through a telescope. What's more, I'm sure lots of people saw that dairy farmers were unaffected by smallpox, but only Jenner did something to extend their immunity to the rest of us.

However, Would we we even know the names of Fleming and Roentgen if they hadn't made their accidental discoveries?

I can go with fortuitous; fortuitous only to the prepared mind. It was fortunate that mold formed in front of Fleming's eyes.

Random would be me discovering penicillin after observing mold in my college dorm room.

Random is the right mold settling on a bacteriologists cultures. Would any biologist would have thought to test the effect of penicilium spores on bacteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better outlaw abortion because what if one of those babies was the next Einstein, Buffet, or Gates?

Genetic determinism? You don't believe in that stuff too do you?

Being smart, keeping a strong positive mind, working hard, are essential. But do you think everyone who possessed these traits became an elite 1 percenter?

1 percenter? These traits are the bare minimum required to keep yourself alive.

It is also irrational to deny that good fortune plays a strong role in who rises to the very top of the pile.

Oh...maybe I hit on something: is this...determinism?

humankind would still have developed his [Edison's] innovations,

By "humankind" do you mean a large collection of men or do you mean some individual man? Would he have been of the same caliber genius as Edison? If so would he have required the same fortunate accident in order to advance knowledge?

[Darwin] put the final piece together to come up with natural selection, but he did not generate the idea by himself.

The Origin of Species is a long book. Please tell me which words or ideas were not Darwin's own so I may investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Origin of Species is a long book. Please tell me which words or ideas were not Darwin's own so I may investigate.

Darwin published in 1859 because Alfred Russel Wallace came up with an identical theory. Both men were influenced by prior works in geology (showing that the earth was very old) and orhogenic theories of development and evolution, particularly Lamarck. Ideas about evolution were knocking about for at least a hundred years before Darwin was born.

Darwin got the idea of natural selection from what plant and animal breeders do to get specialized variants of natural stock.

Ideas do not grow in a vacuum. Darwin had plenty to chew on, from others and from his years of natural exploration whilst aboard The Beagle.

Darwin inferred a great deal empirically but he never got hold of the mechanism by which traits are passed from one generation to the next. Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin, but Darwin never got around to reading Mendel's findings which were published in an obscure Czeck journal. Mendel's ideas were not picked up while Mendel lived and were rediscovered in the early 20-th century by several biologists including De Vries.

Darwin did for biological inheritance and variation what Mendeleyev did for Chemistry. By mostly emperical means Mendeleyev inferred the order among the chemical elements (or many of them) and made good guesses of the properties of elements discovered after his time. Both men got as much as empirical methodology could give.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "humankind" do you mean a large collection of men or do you mean some individual man? Would he have been of the same caliber genius as Edison? If so would he have required the same fortunate accident in order to advance knowledge?

Google Joseph Swan, an Englishman who developed the carbon filament incandescent lamp before Edison. Swan's method of making ultra thin cellulose fibers also found application in cloth production. Swan missed out in one important particular: he did not develop a practical method of generating electricity. When Edison lit up lower Manhattan using incandescent glow lamps he not only produced the bulbs, but the generators and the the cable system for delivering power to the end user. Edison produced a -system- and not just a single invention.

Nikola Tesla, a Serbian, was Edison's erstwhile partner and later his rival. He developed a better method of generating electrical power (AC) and produced glow lamps that did not require filaments. Tesla's glow lamps worked by the ionization of gas enclosed at very low pressure in a glass envelope.

Edison was a better businessman than Tesla, but Tesla was way smarter than Edison. Edison was primarily a dedicated empiricist, who not only did not do theory, but despised it. ("Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration"). Edison was essentially a plodder and a tinkerer. Tesla flew high on wings of thought.

ruveyn

Edited by ruveyn ben yosef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pre vious posts just meant that there were TWO geniuses working on the same problem, not one. One had to be first. Darwin had put many years of his own effort into evolution; so had Wallace. One of them had to be first; it was Darwin. It takes nothing away from what he actually accomplished to note that Wallace almost beat him; it Wallace had beat him, it would have taken nothing away from him to note that that obscure Darwin guy had almost beat him.

Edison/Swan shows tonly that technology depends on antecedent tech a lot of the time. Some quote attributed to the giant named Newton, about standing on the shoulders of giants, belongs here. Da Vinci came up with lots of ideas we simply weren't able to implement effectively with the tech of our time. (For an interesting SF take on this, read Heinlein's Door into Summer. We don't credit him with the inventions but we do throw him in as an interesting historical footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...