Unions

[Black Wolf]

I don't know what "exploit" means. Seriously. What is to keep workers from exploiting employers, demanding exorbitant wages and benefits?

Well, there are only two ways a worker can really do that. Use threats of physical violence, or gather all of his co-workers to demand better wages. That is a union.

What power does a single employee have over an employer?

Each side gets to "exploit" to other, that is, get the best deal they possibly can, by peaceful means.

And I see no reason why, in a free economy, people can't be free to form unions against their workers. I do not agree with compulsory unions at all.

What people generally mean when they say "exploit" is "make a profit based on the labor of others". Well, with unions, they have not managed to completely eliminate exploitation i.e. profitability, but they have certainly reduced profitability some.

Not to sound disrespectful, but any example of such phenomenon? The most I've seen unions do is take $7 out of your paycheck.

[softwareNerd]

What power does a single employee have over an employer?

What power does a single employer have over an employee in a free market?

And I see no reason why, in a free economy, people can't be free to form unions against their workers. I do not agree with compulsory unions at all.

Men should be free to form unions. I don't think anyone here would disagree.

[tito]

Not to sound disrespectful, but any example of such phenomenon? The most I've seen unions do is take $7 out of your paycheck.

Are you asking for examples of unions destroying profit?

The auto industry is a good one. As is the railroad industry (things like forcing rail operators to have a manned caboose on every train, even though newer trains didn't need it at all, rather than making the mechanics redundant)

[softwareNerd]

Are you asking for examples of unions destroying profit?

The auto industry is a good one. As is the railroad industry (things like forcing rail operators to have a manned caboose on every train, even though newer trains didn't need it at all, rather than making the mechanics redundant)

...and more... because of the NEA (teacher's union) it is much harder to bring political change to our school systems; the AMA (doctor's union) has long lobbied (successfully) to keep down the number of doctors entering the U.S. Then, there are retail unions that have seen some retailers shut down, unable to compete with Walmart. Before auto, the steel-workers union helped bring down the large steel-makers.

While unions ought to be legal, there is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence -- across decades, and many countries -- to indicate that unions are a bad idea.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Well, it's unions *with the power of present-day labor law* behind them that did these things.

Without those laws, they'd be incapable of causing this much damage.

(Also: there'd be less motivation to join them because they'd be less effective at obtaining higher wages, etc., for their members. About the most they'd be able to do is forward worker complaints and suggest how to improve things to management.)

[softwareNerd]

(Also: there'd be less motivation to join them because they'd be less effective at obtaining higher wages, etc., for their members. About the most they'd be able to do is forward worker complaints and suggest how to improve things to management.)

It is even worse than that. For instance, if I picture programmers in my company forming a union, I can foresee it would lead to a worse situation for me personally, in the long run. Groups like that will always cater to a pretty low-average common denominator.

[SapereAude]

While unions ought to be legal, there is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence -- across decades, and many countries -- to indicate that unions are a bad idea.

Its one of those eternal paradox type things

Unions should be legal, but employers should also be allowed to fire whomever they please.

Since no employer in their right mind wants unions mucking up their business there would be unions of nothing but unemployed in a just world

[Black Wolf]

What power does a single employer have over an employee in a free market?

The loss of a job. Whereas an employer may have several employees still working for them if one quits, an employee does not have another employer to fall back on.

The loss in the latter case, regardless of whether or not you think it is significantly greater, is greater nonetheless.

It's also harder to tell another employer that you got fired for being too demanding. Hell, it's difficult to tell an interviewer that you got fired period

Edited September 20, 2009 by Black Wolf

[softwareNerd]

The loss of a job. Whereas an employer may have several employees still working for them if one quits, an employee does not have another employer to fall back on.

The loss in the latter case, regardless of whether or not you think it is significantly greater, is greater nonetheless.

Many employers will tell you how difficult it is to find good employees. In the company i work for, if any of the best 25% left, they would get a job easily during any normal economic times. Depending on the job, the employer would miss them a lot or a helluva lot.

[Black Wolf]

Many employers will tell you how difficult it is to find good employees. In the company i work for, if any of the best 25% left, they would get a job easily during any normal economic times. Depending on the job, the employer would miss them a lot or a helluva lot.

As someone who plans to be an entrepenuer himself, I mean not to diminish the loss of an employee, especially if we are referring to mom and pop businesses. But an employer missing one out of X amount of employees, still has employees, understaffed as they may be.

An employee has nothing once he's fired.

[JASKN]

An employee has nothing once he's fired.

He still has his skills, which he can take elsewhere. An employer gains a reputation just like an employee, so if improper firings take place, justice will take care of it by means of a reputation.

I have been fired, and I have said so in interviews. I have also been hired into a good company despite being fired from a bad one. That's what an interview is for, to let you explain scenarios like that.

EDIT: If by "nothing" you also mean no money to fall back on, that's what a savings is for.

Edited September 21, 2009 by JASKN

[ToyoHabu]

I could imagine Unions morphing into something like a employment agency +plus for a particular skill set. The prospective employee in exchange for a membership dues would gain training, marketing, legal help, and a heads up on perspective employers. The employers would gain from the ability could choose from various trade unions that provided the best trained labor for the price he chooses to pay. No coercion needed.

[Greebo]

The idea that unions would have no value in a purely capitalistic society presupposes that all employers would act rationally in a purely capitalistic society.

In a totally free market, unions may very well have value as a collective negotiation tool for employees. Even Rand herself acknowledged that Unions arose for a legitimate purpose, after all:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/unions.html

It was business, not labor, that initiated the policy of government intervention in the economy (as long ago as the nineteenth century)—and business was the first victim. Labor adopted the same policy and will meet the same fate. He who lives by a legalized sword, will perish by a legalized sword.

[softwareNerd]

The idea that unions would have no value in a purely capitalistic society presupposes that all employers would act rationally in a purely capitalistic society.

I don't think this is presumed.

In a totally free market, unions may very well have value as a collective negotiation tool for employees.

I doubt it; but, projections like this are just guesses.

Even Rand herself acknowledged that Unions arose for a legitimate purpose, after all:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/unions.html

The context she's describing is different. When pressure-group warfare is the name of the political game, it "makes sense" to form pressure groups. Edited September 21, 2009 by softwareNerd

[TheAllotrope]

He still has his skills, which he can take elsewhere. An employer gains a reputation just like an employee, so if improper firings take place, justice will take care of it by means of a reputation.

Amen. Employees are not dependent on one employer - they always have alternatives. Often the best alternative is in the same field, sometimes it's not. But in no case is production wholly dependent on a relationship between two particular people.

Also, people have been mentioning "power" in the context of a capitalist society, which I consider a contradiction. Power implies the ability to force someone to do something, and refusing to buy someone's product or labor has nothing to do with force.

[AllMenAreIslands]

As long as individuals are free NOT to join the union in order to work in a given industry or for a given employer - that is, as long as membership in the union is completely voluntary AND the union has no special rights & dispensations granted to it by law permitting it to initiate force in any way - some people may see a value in joining a union. It should be akin to joining any other voluntarily organized and formed professional group.

[Black Wolf]

He still has his skills, which he can take elsewhere. An employer gains a reputation just like an employee, so if improper firings take place, justice will take care of it by means of a reputation.

I have been fired, and I have said so in interviews. I have also been hired into a good company despite being fired from a bad one. That's what an interview is for, to let you explain scenarios like that.

EDIT: If by "nothing" you also mean no money to fall back on, that's what a savings is for.

- What if nobody decides to hire him because he either has to explain he was not recently employed, or he quit because the job was not paying him enough?

- What if the job did not pay him enough so that he could acquire savings?

Edited September 26, 2009 by Black Wolf

[DavidOdden]

- What if nobody decides to hire him because he either has to explain he was not recently employed, or he quit because the job was not paying him enough?

He still has whatever skills he had to start with. That's something that can never be taken. Even if nobody wants to hire him, that does not negate the fact that he does have something: his life, his mind, and his right to pursue any values that he can gain and keep.

[softwareNerd]

A small example of how government pushes unionism, this one from the state of Michigan. People who provide day care that is paid for by the government (via subsidies to the poor parents) found that they were members of a union, and a part of their payments would be withheld and sent to the union. See WSJ story for more.

[Mrs. Chrisman]

In my opinion, Unions are nothing more than the "factions" that the Federalist Papers warned us about.

My experience with unions, as a student nurse, have shown me that while it may be beneficial for them to exist insofar as they have successfully negotiated safe nurse to patient ratios and things related to overtime and doctor-nurse relations, Unions also make it almost impossible to fire an unsafe nurse and if your hospital is unionized you *must* join the union even if you don't want to. And if you work during a strike your life can "be made miserable" as I was told.

I can see both sides. As a single employee I would have no power against the hospital who for instance made me take on an unsafe number of patients, and in a Capitalist environment as suggested in Ms. Rand's book all the employer would have to do is fire me and hire someone who is willing to do so (at the expense of patient care, obviously). I would have to band together with similarly inclined nurses to effect change where change is needed-- the purpose Unions have served since their inception. However they have also become "legal bullies."

So it seems it's a paradox of sorts. We still somewhat need them, but not to the extent of their presence today.

[Jake_Ellison]

I can see both sides. As a single employee I would have no power against the hospital who for instance made me take on an unsafe number of patients, and in a Capitalist environment as suggested in Ms. Rand's book all the employer would have to do is fire me and hire someone who is willing to do so (at the expense of patient care, obviously). I would have to band together with similarly inclined nurses to effect change where change is needed-- the purpose Unions have served since their inception. However they have also become "legal bullies."

So it seems it's a paradox of sorts. We still somewhat need them, but not to the extent of their presence today.

Assuming of course that nurses are the only ones who recognize an unsafe number of patients, and management and the ownership would never listen to a single nurse's concerns, even if presented in a rational manner, because they are just evil or stupid. If that isn't true, if the owners of a business are the ones most inclined and interested in making sure their enterprise offers the best product possible to its clients, because otherwise they couldn't survive in a competitive marketplace, then we don't really need unions, the paradox is thankfully prevented, and the Universe is saved from collapsing in on itself.

I think you identified the purpose of unions perfectly: they usually exist to seek power. That power is taken from rightful owners and potential non-unionized employees, who are prevented from engaging in voluntary trade, and it is usually done with the help of the government, or with mafia tactics against uncooperative workers and businesses. What I disagree with is the part where you suggest that power is in the wrong place, in the hands of a hospital's owners and the management they appoint, and it would be better exercised by some other persons, who do not have the legal right to do so through the mechanisms of private ownership.

[necrovore]

I'm with ToyoHabu on this one. (Edit: ToyoHabu posted about ten items back; I forgot things are in reverse order.) Unions would be able to exist in a capitalist system, but without coercion, they would have to be more like businesses. "Your business should buy our labor," they would advertise, "because it's high quality and consistent and we take administrative matters off your hands." They would then try to get contracts with companies that need a lot of laborers. If a business tried to break the contract, or if the business was unwilling to offer acceptable terms, the union would refuse to work for that business.

To workers, they would have to say, "Join our union, be one of us, and we'll give you pay and benefits consistent with your performance, we'll work to ensure a more safe and pleasant work environment, and we'll help you build your skills." Some unions might be able to offer workers the chance to work at a variety of companies.

Unions would then have to compete against individuals who went directly to companies and against companies that go straight to individuals. However, a company could easily hire both types of workers. Competition doesn't necessarily mean price competition. The union could charge a higher price but offer higher quality (or additional services).

In a capitalist system, unions would be unable to violate the rights of businessmen, and businessmen would be unable to violate the rights of union or non-union workers. So all the bad aspects of unions would go away.

John Galt never coerced anyone into dealing with his union. What his union did was offer value.

Edited January 6, 2010 by necrovore

[jmr]

My new job will require me to join a union. Nobody knew how much they take off their paychecks, it's like they don't care.

When looking for that info I came across the union's FAQ page.

http://ontario.psac.com/organizing/faq.shtml

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that.

[ZSorenson]

I think the important thing to take away from them is that unionization is not categorically wrong.

I agree. Unions are perfectly legitimate ways for employees to bargain with an employer. What makes them legitimate is that the employer is always free to hire outside the union, in a free economy, so the union's bargaining power is only equal to the worth of the employee's skills.

If the best machinists all agree that they deserve a certain wage for their skills, and the employer needs those skills to produce at the level he desires, and he can afford to pay that wage, then that is the proper wage for those employees. If their skills are not worth that much to him, he will not hire them, and so they were asking too much and can bargain for a lower wage. If the machinists skills aren't that valuable, the employer can hire others who aren't participating in the union arrangement.

What makes unions poison is government support for unions - which is really a huge political poison in the US, but even more so overseas. What makes unions 'bad' is the concept of 'social justice'. Unions that use this as their motive are not acting rationally, and will not even benefit in the end - like the factory workers in Atlas Shrugged.

On the other hand, unions that use bargaining for a fair wage as their motive do much good. What is a 'fair' wage? It is the market equilibrium, determined by the same criteria as price.

Why would a union be necessary then? If an employer uses labor to produce value for him, then that labor has a much a right to withhold their efforts as he does to withhold his. He maybe built the machines, but he requires hands to work them. How much his machines multiply the value of their hands doesn't have any bearing over the right of the workers to use or not use their hands. If one worker decides he won't use his hands for the wages he is receiving, fine. If many workers think this, fine. If they talk about it, and word spreads, fine. All a proper union does is provide a forum for representing the judgments of many workers to one employer. Equal bargaining if you will. Undoubtedly, his machines provide inestimably more wealth than the workers' hands alone and HIS threat of a strike (John Galt style) should be enough to convince them to accept a certain amount of disparity between his earnings and theirs. But THEIR threat of a strike should (ie, we'd rather return to the farms, even if we risk famine) convince him to provide a higher wage than otherwise. Otherwise is when a single worker would say 'no' to a job, but doesn't because he's uncertain whether anyone else will. Atlas Shrugge made the case, for the first time, that striking was a right of the producer as well. But this accepts the same right to strike and desire the maximum accetable wage on the part of the workers.

Unions can't use force, shouldn't use concepts of social justice. Rather, if workers organize a union, they may bargain for a higher wage. If the market bears it, they will get it. I note that the threat of a strike is not force, and producers can do the same.

I think proper unions are absolutely necessary sometimes. Not for reasons of collectivism, not to use force, but to give a group of many who bargain with one a better position from which to bargain for their individual interests.

[softwareNerd]

On the other hand, unions that use bargaining for a fair wage as their motive do much good. What is a 'fair' wage? It is the market equilibrium, determined by the same criteria as price. ... ...

I think proper unions are absolutely necessary sometimes. Not for reasons of collectivism, not to use force, but to give a group of many who bargain with one a better position from which to bargain for their individual interests.

In essence, these unions are organized against potential employees who would work for less.