Great story. Thank you. Happy Labor Day.

I have nothing against those who want to join unions. I think that each individual has a right to make that choice. However, when union membership is forced on an employee or and employer, the unions have become to powerful. That is where the key resentment that most conservatives have against "big labor". Unions have taken away the right of an individual to decide his/her own wage worth and the right of employers to higher nonunion workers, who most likely will work hard for less money.

Each industry is different, and some industries demand unions, but to be objectively one must admit that taking away ones ability to choose for oneself is irresponsible and anti freedom.

So, if a union has negotiated a pay raise, should the employees who have 'opted out' of unionization be exempt?

PoliArt, you've made the same argument that the rapacious English mill owners made in the first part of the 19th century. It was self-servingly dishonest then, and it no less so now. You've said that it's illegitimate to force a union on an employer. That idea would put all power in the hands of the employers. Do you really want that? If you do, then you have no idea what freedom is.

Great post and great site. Very important stuff you're putting out here.

Thanks and Happy Labor Day!!

-Ben Stone
Hoy*Puh*Loy

PoliArt, you've made the same argument that the rapacious English mill owners made in the first part of the 19th century. It was self-servingly dishonest then, and it no less so now. You've said that it's illegitimate to force a union on an employer. That idea would put all power in the hands of the employers. Do you really want that? If you do, then you have no idea what freedom is.

PoliArt:

From conservatives (including you?) express concern over unions having become "too powerful".

Yet I never hear concern over employers having become "too powerful".

On Labor Day, let's consider the different freedoms (political AND economic) that are curtailed and/or expanded when unions become "too powerful" and when employers become "too powerful".

Excuse me for the typo in my first sentence, which should read:

I've heard over and over conservatives (including you?) expressing concern over . . .

Nathan, thanks so much! Inspiring story here on a rained-out Labor Day in a Republican-controlled, right-to-work-for-less state.

til the day I die.

Nice touch -- brings up a mental picture of the cocktail servers belting out "Union Maid"! The waitresses didn't by any chance come up with new verses during their campaign? I bet Mad Kane would be up to the task if called on...

I do lean to the conservative side on economic issues. However, forcing anyone, either employer or employee to join a union is not my definition of freedom. As I said before, unions have a place and a time. Some industries require them but not all. When a union takes away an employees ability to negotiate a salary the end result can be a lower salary. The end result is not always positive with unions. Some industries you can not work in unless you are union. This keeps people out of work because of the protectionism of unions.

Unions also help to keep people from being over worked and under paid. They have done some positive things in this country. However, when the majority of unions begin to look at employers as the enemy instead of a partner, then they are going down the wrong path.

For those of you concerned about "big business" against the labor unions, remember, the business men are the ones who invested all the money, they are the ones taking the biggest risk, and therefore they deserve to gain the bigger profits. That is the beauty of capitalism. The bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff with success and the bigger the loss with failure.

There is a compromise between business and unions, but to immediately assume that all employers are evil and to treat them so, is no different than thinking every African American is a felon. Prejudice comes in many shades.

Bhaal:

Yes they should be opted out.

And when a nonunion worker negotiates a higher pay than a union worker the union worker must opt out.

Believe it or not it happens quite often.

PA, please stop trolling.

if you can't stop yourself, at the very least back up your naked, unsupported assertions with evidence. I'd like peer-reviewed studies, please.

PoliArt says "However, when the majority of unions begin to look at employers as the enemy instead of a partner, then they are going down the wrong path."

I say "When the majority of employers begin to look at unions as the enemy instead of a partner, then they are going down the wrong path, and when the majority of employers begin to look at unions as a partner, a true partner in all respects of the word, then perhaps the unions will not be forced into considering too many employers as enemies for exploiting those who provide something far more valuable than the money invested --the one commodity you can't get back--their time -- for the benefit of the corporate master."

PoliArt:

It's not a question of being "for" or "against" employers, but one of differing structural interests. Ultimately what is at stake is the distribution of the wealth created through cooperation (or "partnership" in your terms)--the more one side gets, the less for the other. Certainly an employer and an employee can act as "partners" and negotiate a "fair" distribution--in fact, as you well know, the purpose of the union is to give the individual worker a more powerful voice in this negotiation--but antagonistic or not, the interests (regarding the distribution of wealth) of both sides do not coincide.

Recognizing this is different from vilifying employers as "evil"--so the racist stereotyping of African Americans is a false analogy in this case.

As for the matter of "risk" . . . why must we consider it in such one-dimensional terms? Who takes a bigger risk, the businessperson who invests, say, $500k of his $10 million fortune into some venture, or the employee who takes a low-paying job in the businessperson's company and in doing so loses access to public assistance for transportation, child care, and food? This is an increasingly common situation in America but it is rarely considered among all the risk-talk on the business pages . . . Does only the capitalist's risk get rewarded? Why?

PoliArt,
Your reference to "business men" is very telling. If you think enterprise in this country is powered exclusively by men, it's no wonder you're not progressive enough to "get" unions.

What about laws that require Corp. to employ X amount o US employees before they can even qualify to be in the bidding for US or military contracts. OR what about laws to ensure that the only companies who build anything military wise for the US must be completely US owned and operated?

John Jimenez

http://gore2004.meetup.com/

Beautiful, man. Solidarity forever.

The sexist comment was low Lisa, but what should I expect from someone who refuses to use any basis of fact to back up arguments.

naw, seems to be the only person willing to discuss the arguement in a logical fashion, and I respect that. Because we disagree does not inherently meke me evil either, despite the rantings of the majority of posters. People seem to focus on the fact that I am not entirely supportive of all unions, instead of the fact that I agree that they have their place in society, as I have said on numerous occasions now.

naw:
In reference to, "why must we consider it in such one-dimensional terms? Who takes a bigger risk, the businessperson who invests, say, $500k of his $10 million fortune into some venture, or the employee who takes a low-paying job in the businessperson's company and in doing so loses access to public assistance for transportation, child care, and food?"

The answer to your question is, of course, the business man. Why? First you must look at your question. 9 times our of 10 that 500K is more than half of the fortune of an individual, therefore they risk the future of their family as well. The bias is layed into the way you ask the question, not just the answer. You won't be supprised to hear me say that the loss the "worker" suffers in your example, is of no value, because I believe that the gov't assistance only adds more the problem, but that is for a different post.

Workers do give up their time, and should be compensated for that. However, the over compensation of work adds to the expense in product, lower revenues, less profit, less investment. Therefore, there is an even balance that the market allows for. This is why unions can be helpful to tie in the balance and help with injustices. But lining up your workers on docks to stop shipments from going out by those that are trying to do jobs, as happened in SF several months ago, is counter progressive and hurtful to the image of unions.

But I digress . . .

i've worked in a grocery store for years and years now, and i can't help but remember when i was a kid (i'm 40) and it seemed that damn near nothing was open on labor day. i think that was what labor day was put there for; people who busted their asses off on a daily basis got a free day off. no big deal. just some recognition from your employer that you did your job. of course, now, that would be ridiculous. what rightminded company would turn away all those people wandering around with money who have the day off?

I have run into people like PA many times, until they feel the sting of the whip themselves they assume everyone who suffers it either deserved it or just wasn't smart or tough enough to make it on their own. I don't know which, and I don't care. PoliArt, you just stick to your guns and negotiate your compensation on your own, and don't you worry, I'm sure no one would ever cheat or rob or treat you unfairly in any way. I'm sure you'll be the one in a million who works their way up from the mailroom to the boardroom just on good old honest hard work and loyalty, yessiree Bob.
The funny thing is, when you get smacked down by reality and ask to join up, the union will be just as glad to help you as anyone else. That's why unions are better than happy slave hopes.

I would suggest that potential employees who do not want to join a union do the same thing that employers always tell employees dissatisfied with workers safety, working conditions and salariesL: go elsewhere. If a worker is ideologically opposed to unionization, go work somewhere where there isn't a union, but don't ask to get union benefits for a free ride. Conservatives are always telling people they have the choice not to work where there are no health care benefits, etc. Well, they also have the choice not to work where there's a union. There are plenty of workers who will be thrilled to work in a union shop.

I love how the conservatives praise the market - -but want to constrain worker's rights to bargain and negotiate for their working conditions and salaries. A worker withholding labor is using the market -- as purely and simply as any businessperson deciding how much to produce.

As to workers objecting to paying into a union's political fund -- all union members have the right to opt out of supporting political activities already. So really, you are arguing for workers to get union benefits without supporting the union -- which of course, is an underhanded argument designed to destroy the labor movement.

And to who is taking the greater risk -- risk is relative. If the employer is risking $5 million but has $50 million and the worker is risking everything and has nothing -- the worker is taking the greater risk. Moreover -- it's clear with the Enron ethics of today's business world -- the only one really taking the risk is the worker.

When a union takes away an employees ability to negotiate a salary the end result can be a lower salary.

Hello? On what planet do waitresses, construction workers, farmhands, factory workers, actors, office workers, nurses, nurses' aides, cooks, cashiers, garment workers, schoolteachers, lab technicians, proofreaders, truckdrivers, building supers, cops, cabbies, firemen, teaching assistants, miners, security guards, bus drivers, cowboys, cartoon animators, veterinary assistants, fast-food "associates," zookeepers' assistants, shopgirls, mechanics, doormen, busboys, porters, hotel maids, ambulance drivers, musicians, stock clerks, street cleaners or any other job that isn't management, negotiate salaries? If you get hired, your new employer says "Here's what we're paying you." End of negotiations. The ONLY real negotiations possible are with your union--if you're lucky enough to have one.

You've never had a real job yourself, have you?

Poliart

You are clinging to the most basic economic fallacy that gets repeated, over and over in this country.

The capitalist’s only risks money, (not a particularly valuable commodity in and of it's self.)

Wealth on the other hand, comes from one source, and one source only. That is the LABOR it takes to convert raw commodities into usable items. That labor is the ONLY thing that adds value, and creates wealth.

The capitalist, if he is smart, and wants his investment to grow, hires capable laborers to create that wealth, and for facilitating that creation, he deserves a SHARE of the wealth created by the laborers. NOT the entire produce of the productive labor, but a SHARE.

In a functioning economy, that is the way it works. In our upside down economy the capitalists are parasites sucking all of the wealth that only US LABORERS can create, as if he had actually done anything useful, except provide us the tools to produce, and stayed the hell out of our way.

Yes I am a union supporter, unfortunately, though I work in what should be a very high paying field, I work in a right to work for less state, and make less than half what my Job is worth if I could afford to move to a union state. (my state also has well above the average cost of living so, unless you retire here, or already had capital to invest when you arrived, getting out of this state is almost impossible.)

Mr Tek

My favorite union site:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/ceou/index.cfm

Lots of eye opening information there.

I'm glad to see this kind of debate. I'm an organizer like nathan, and it is really inspiring to see people put their necks on the line to form unions.

I was watching John Sweeney on C-SPAN yesterday, and he was talking about how union elections stack up against other elections. I'll draw a few of his points here:

Imagine running for office. You're passionate and qualified. Your opponent has the power to fire you if you lose your race. Your opponent has the power to hold your voters in one-on-one meetings and threaten to close up the shop if you win. That's actually legal. Your opponent can hold up the election, and if you win, can hold up your actually taking office. Oh yeah, if your opponent actually breaks the law, there is a backlog at the enforcement agency that can take years to actually get to your case.

If that were a community election, would we consider that democracy?

Of course not, but that's what folks trying to form unions have to go through.

As for poliart, it's fairly clear he/she has never been on the short end of the stick. We only have the 40-hour workweek because people were willing to get arrested, shot at, and fired to fight for it. We have a minimum wage and social security for the same reasons.

Like the bumper says:

"Unions: the anti-theft device for working people"

PoliArt is unmindful of the fact that as beautiful as capitalism is (beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course), it is a system of exploitation. The business men and women are inherently trying to get more out of their workers than their workers are compensated for. As long as there is capitalism there will be exploitation. Simple fact. Unions are beautiful because they attempt to balance out that relationship to some degree, but in no way is it the intent of a union to exploit either workers or owners, nor can a union ever expect to remove all the exploitation from the owner/worker relationship as long as the system remains intact.

Just my two cents.

Nathan,

Good to see you're a fellow HERE alumnus. I worked at Local 11 in L.A. in 97-98. Great piece.

Josh

merdog, you've got a good point. I went to the big box store mini-mall yesterday to see if I could pick up a present for my brother's birthday (bad me, I forgot to shop earlier) and every one of the stores was open and full of customers. Whatever happened to getting Labor Day off? I was really hoping that retail would get holidays. Silly me. Seems to me proof that those folks could really use some union representation. ;)

I find it very interesting that I read this blog post in the morning, and couldn't find anything to disagree with. Then, this afternoon I found Virginia Postrel arguing that the EEOC shouldn't get involved in preventing discrimination against "a perfectly natural, if unkind, phenomenon: preferring good-looking employees to unattractive ones."
Of course, she doesn't have a comment box.

Here's a list of 22 on-the-job deaths in Massachusetts alone last year:

http://www.masscosh.org/jobdeathsosha.htm

I think their survivors would have a very hard time with the idea that the people who pay their salaries are the ones who take "the biggest risk."

If PoliArt had ever been a union member, he would not ever say half of the crap he presents as "facts". So, since he's getting all of his info from the American Enterprise Institute, maybe he'd like to explain how it is that wages go down once unions are eradicated? How it is that companies like Wal-Mart force unpaid overtime on their employees?

Perhaps PoliArt should give up the cushy life which leads to such ignorance and try working a job where the conditions are as Libertarian as he thinks they should be. Let's see how long he can last working under these conditions. Maybe then he would understand why people seek unions, because while he can return to the AEI life he leads, the vast majority of us cannot.

PoliArt: ... unions have a place and a time. Some industries require them but not all.

This is nonsense. Industries that do not "require" a union, do not require one only because they are sufficiently afraid of getting one, and they raise employee compensation to prevent that.

... when the majority of unions begin to look at employers as the enemy instead of a partner ...

Employers came first; unions were simply a response. It's called cause and effect. Unions do not look at an employer as an enemy unless he is acting like one. Unions know that it is not in their benefit to put their employer out of business. A natural parnetship should therefore exist between the two, but often enough, it does not. When this happens, it is almost certainly a failure of the employer, either one of greed and/or bad faith, or one of failure to educate union members regarding critical economic constraints under which the business operates.

... when a nonunion worker negotiates a higher pay than a union worker ... Believe it or not it happens quite often.

Yes, it does. It is an all too common tactic known as union busting.

despite the rantings of the majority of posters.

Rantings? Cheap shot, Poli. Of course the majority of posters are pro-union. Nathan is well known for his views, and this makes his site a natural gathering place for pro-union people.

Greg: capitalism is ... a system of exploitation.

A bit too far Left. All economic systems are systems of exploitation. Capitalism happens to be one of the better ones in that, in its pure form, it is mutual exploitation for mutual benefit. But for it to be this, the interests of buyer and seller (in this case, management and employee) must be reasonably in balance. It is when they are not that capitalism becomes just one more economic system suffering from what all of them do: They contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction.

Hi y'all -- I happened across this thread on Labor Day but didn't have a chance to respond to PoliArt then -- now I come back, and lo and behold, it looks like LOTS of other folks have been on the case! So I'll restrict myself to two observations about PoliArt's "argument":

(1) It's traditional for cheap-labor conservatives to play the Freedom Card: "Gosh, how AWFUL to be FORCED to join a union (even if it means getting higher wages, better benefits, etc. than our non-union colleagues)." But here's an interesting question: I wonder what the actual ratio is between
(a) workers who have been forced against their will to join unions if they wanted a job, and thus a paycheck, and thus survival, and (
b) workers who have been forced against their will to take jobs which paid them less than they thought they were worth if they wanted a job, and thus a paycheck, and thus survival.
I'm guessin' the ratio would tilt pretty damn heavily toward (b).

What's that? You object to the comparison because, hey, workers don't GET to choose what they're worth based on what they THINK they're worth? Indeed. That brings me to

(2) I can't BELIEVE PoliArt wrote this sentence: "Unions have taken away the right of an individual to decide his/her own wage worth and the right of employers to higher nonunion workers, who most likely will work hard for less money."

UNIONS have taken away "the right of an individual to decide his/her own wage worth"? Gosh, I didn't even know workers HAD such a "right." Alas for all the workers who meekly took what they were offered in job interviews rather than slap their prospective employers upside the head with this RIGHT to be paid what THEY (the workers) think they're worth rather than what the employers want to give them (which is BOUND to be less).

But wait: then PoliArt defends the RIGHT of employers to higher (sic) non-union workers, noting that they "most likely will work hard for less money." So on the one hand unions are bad because (*snicker*) they deny WORKERS the right to SET THEIR OWN WAGES, and on the other hand they're bad because without them EMPLOYERS could more easily get workers TO WORK FOR LESS? I mean, is it just me who sees an astounding contradiction here -- never mind the odd claim that it's UNIONS which deny workers a supposed right to set their own worth?

PoliArt, you need a big steamin' dose of Conceptual Guerrilla:
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com

I remember taking a business trip to Arizona and Nevada about 8 years ago. Two of the apartment complexes that I needed to tour were in Bullhead City, Arizona--just across the Colorado River from Laughlin, Nevada. Where did almost all of the residents work--or plan to work? In the unionized casinos in Laughlin, despite all of the new development in Bullhead City. Now that's voting with your feet.

> All economic systems are systems of exploitation.
> Capitalism happens to be one of the better ones in
> that, in its pure form, it is mutual exploitation
> for mutual benefit.

I'd disagree with that. The benefit in capitalism is inherently biased in favour of the employer. Capitalism exacerbates existing inequalities. If you're just barely scraping by in a low paid job, it's very difficult to change your situation (impossible for the majority, since if everyone left their low paid jobs the system would collapse). But if you already have more money than you need, you can invest it to make extra income. The more you have, the more you can get. I fail to see how this could be considered fair, or how capitalism could be made to function in any other way.

Suprise suprise, Yet Another Conservative Clueless About Economics (YACCAE).

Where to begin?

When a union takes away an employees ability to negotiate a salary the end result can be a lower salary. The end result is not always positive with unions.

This has to be one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever heard. Ignoring the flawed assumption of a perfectly competitive market in labour and/or goods for the moment, are you really arguing that bargaining as an individual is likely to yield better results than bargaining collectively? Are you really arguing that collective bargaining does *not* give unions market power in the labour market?

Now, to get to the other gaping whole in that sentence: For indiviudals to be able to bargain to a wage that is exactly equal to the marginal product of their labour (i.e. their economic worth) you must assume that the markets in goods, services, and labour are perfectly competitive (and therefore, than firms do not have market power and cannot affect prices). This assumption is necessary because firms with market power will, by definition, have pricing power, and it is in their rational self interest to use that power to lower the prices they must pay, and increase the prices that they charge. In the case of imperfect competition (through oligopoly, monopsony or monopoly) firms will be able to bargain wages down to below the marginal product of labour (again, by definiton.) Of course, in perfect competiton, economic profits average zero in the long term (supply and demand curves in perfect competition dictate that at equilibrium economic profits are zero). The very existence of product differentiation, and profit as a normal occurence clearly prove that almost all markets are imperfect.

Therefore, without the existence of unions, firms have market power to affect the wage rate of workers to below marginal product of labour rates, and therefore below what the labour is worth. The market in labour is distorted by this condition, and hence, workers bargaining as individuals are unlikely to ever be able to reach a bargain where they are payed what they are worth economically.

Some industries you can not work in unless you are union. This keeps people out of work because of the protectionism of unions.

Do not rational economic actors have the freedom to choose to work elsewhere? This assertion is not in line with your own underlying assumpotions.

Unions also help to keep people from being over worked and under paid. They have done some positive things in this country. However, when the majority of unions begin to look at employers as the enemy instead of a partner, then they are going down the wrong path.

In bargaining, unions exist to counter the distortion of the labour market that is present as a result of imperfect competition, this often requires driving a hard bargain with firms that seek to use their market power to impose wage rates below the marginal product of labour (or what they believe it to be). To do otherwise would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the unions.

For those of you concerned about "big business" against the labor unions, remember, the business men are the ones who invested all the money, they are the ones taking the biggest risk, and therefore they deserve to gain the bigger profits. That is the beauty of capitalism. The bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff with success and the bigger the loss with failure.

Patently false with the existence of incorporation which limits the liability of investors to the amount invested. Any individual who invests more than they can afford to lose is a fool and deserves what they get. I believe that notion is called "personal responsibility"