I guess that holds water, if you look at the pretty powerless state of unions. It's not as though workers have any rights to speak of, so throwing the NLRA in the trash can't make things that much worse.

Right-to-work laws are simply an end-run around the NLRA. One or the other should be repealed.

I agree with the Libertarians about "right to work" laws. I avoided working in Virginia when I was a gaffer, first because I was in two stage/film unions, and second because Virginia, being a "right to work" state, underpaid its technicians. I could make twice to three times the amount of money doing the same job across the river in D. C. Plus, there were no break protections in "right to work" states. The stage/film unions provide protections in addition to better pay. The working conditions were better as well, especially considering how unsafe that job could be.

I think this is entirely backwards -- the Wagner act was the most radical piece of legislation passed during the 1930s. It brought the immense power of the state into the workplace and tippped the balance in what was previously a private relationship between worker and boss at the point of production. Even though it's since been hobbled by Board rulings and judge-made law, it's still worth fighting for and reforming. Workers need all the help they can get in an economy structured to favor owners and shaft employees. See Jobs with Justice's current campaign (which I was out leafletting for this morining in the freezing cold!) to support the right to organize: http://www.jwj.org/workplace/D10/D10.htm

As far as "free speech" in the workplace goes, it's the speech of the employer that's the problem. It's very hard to argue that the boss should not interfere whatsoever in a group of workers' collective decision to unionize on free speech grounds. Libertarianism -- an ideology predicated on the sanctity of "voluntary" contracts made between "equals" -- seems particularly incapable of addressing the inequities of the capitalist workplace.

I agree with you, Nathan. Even though the rights in the Wagner Act are very important, they have been reduced to abstract platitudes due to the fact that they cannot effectively be enforced. The NLRB is at best incompetent but well meaning -- as under a Democratic administration or mild Republican one -- or at worst almost malicious towards workers and unions -- as under the current administration. The rights guaranteed under the Wagner Act may not be enforced without the NLRB's participation, and so long as that is the case I'd favor scrapping the Act so long as employees and unions regained the rights they lost when Taft-Hartley passed.

Nathan is right. Wagner was in some ways a step back from Norris-Laguardia.

There's a substantial current within the labor movement that feels the same way. As I recall this was also John L. Lewis' view, toward the end of his life -- tho of course his political judgement wasn't always the most reliable...

If we could eliminate Taft-Hartley and keep the Wagner Act, that would be better than the present situation. But my only point is that the Libertarian Party position-- eliminate both-- is also better than what we now have in the Taft-Hartley environment we live in.

Most labor unions just want the government to leave them alone. Take the grocery strike-- if other unions could go on strike in sympathy without facing court injunction, that battle would be done tomorrow.

I'm not an expert, but I believe that the "forced to join a union" line is a right-wing shibboleth, like "affirmative action = quotas." For some reason Matthews likes to trot it out on a regular basis.

No one (if I understand the law correctly) is ever forced to join a union. However, once a union has negotiated a wage increase, non-joiners must pay a dues-equivalent to the union.

6 of 1, 1/2 dozen the other? I don't think so. Why shouldn't libertarians and other fair-minded sorts be able to conceive of a union as a compensation negotiation consultant, with fees paid as a percentage of wage increase won? Perfectly free-market concept. Fee is calculated from wages of all who benefit from the service as specified in the consulting contract. Becoming an associate of this consulting group (i.e. joining the union) is then an entirely voluntary move for those who are interested in participating in its activities.

Allowing right-wingers to define the terms of the debate (like "forced to join a union" and "affirmative action = quotas") is the most devastating mistake liberals make in the public discourse. Conservatives thereby frequently ensure they have already won before argument even starts.

Although, Steve, what's wrong with being "forced to join the union", much like you are "forced to be a citizen." Union dues are like taxes-- the price of industrial democracy and rights in the workplace.

I actually don't like talking about unions as some free market economic premium, like a company parking spot. Unions are the vehicle of employee voice in governing the workplace. Dues are set by democratic vote within the union, just as it's leaders are chosen by vote of the members. And if you don't like how the money is spent in a democracy, you don't get to "opt out" of paying taxes-- you organize to change the leadership by voting.

The whole "agency fee" deal was a court-imposed gimmick; in theory, I'm against any voluntary participation, because every employee should be considered a member of the workplace polity and required to be a dues paying, voting member of the union.

I disagree with you on your last point, Nathan. I see no reason why anyone in a free society should be forced to join an organizination against his or her free will. Mind you, this is different than being forced to contribute to the union's finances to pay one's fair share. But even here, while it is not fair to have free riders, there are other ways for a union to build membership than to rely on the employer's good will in agreeing to a union-security clause.

Myself, I would gladly agree to a national right to work law in exchange for 2 reforms: 1) mandatory card-check recognition, enforceable in court with court sanctions; and 2) repeal of Taft Hartley's anti-worker provisions.

John-- Every time you take a job, you "join an organization" unwillingly, usually funding corporate coffers with your sweat and labor, with no vote at all in how the proceeds of your work are spent. In most cases-- non-union workplaces-- even the money in your pension fund is controlled by your boss and spent in ways that often undermine your economic and political interests.

So how come this libertarian worry about being "forced to join an organization" comes up only when a union appears in a workplace? You have the same right not to fund the company's coffers as the union-- ie. don't take the job.

But at least with the union, you get a vote in setting the level of dues and who runs the union, something you don't get in regards to who runs the corporation you are "forced" to join.

On this point, libertarians are smarter philosophically than a lot of liberals. Libertarians "get" that contracts have coercisive elements that are needed to avoid free-rider problems. If the union is going to organize a workplace and provide the public goods needed to make the union successful, requiring union membership makes sense and is no burden on liberty.

Let's get real-- if any union member is really horrified that some of his dues are going to political causes he doesn't like-- usually amounting to a few dollars per year-- he can write a check equivalent to the surplus pay the union gives him and hand it over to the union's political opponents.

This rhetoric of "coercisive membership" is just damn silly-- you are "forced" to join local and national governments, housing and homeowner associations, mutual fund investments, and so on-- all of which use your money and membership in all sorts of ways.

So to repeat, why does this fear of being "forced to join" only come up with unions?

Why does this fear of being "forced to join" only come up with unions?

Nathan, having both a libertarian bent but also being very pro-union, I have no great moral problem with a union-security clause myself. As you have rightly described it, it is a contract between a union and an employer in which the employer promises to discharge anyone who does not pay his or her union dues. You're right: A "right to work" law amounts to nothing more than state interference with the parties' right to set contract terms.

Nevertheless, you should acknowledge that your argument is predicated on the notion that the only coercion that counts is coercion from the state. I think we'd both agree, however, that coercion from an employer can also be a vice worth fighting.

I disagree with those who see the "right to work" laws as the downfall of the labor movement. While they certainly serve as a major impediment to a strong union (by choking off the money supply needed to pay for a copy machine, lawyers, etc.) they are surmountable. Indeed, some of the strongest unions in the country -- measured both by bargaining clout and membership activity -- operate in right to work states (e.g., HERE in Las Vegas).

Final analysis: 1) I'm opposed to right to work laws; 2) I question the recieved wisdom that they are the downfall of the labor movement.

John- I agree with you that the lack of union security clauses are not the main problem for unions-- their abscence in non-union states is more the result of weak unions than their cause. I was a union organizer in Local 226 HERE in Vegas, so I know very well that a union can thrive under "right to work" states.

My objection to "right to work for less" laws, as us union folks deem them, is on principle. As a non-libertarian (in the economic sense) who nonetheless is strongly in favor of maximum defense of free speech and other rights, all the moaning about "coercion" due to union shop agreements just annoy me. Unions are the only force that give workers free speech in the workplace-- yet folks actually whine about the most minor infringement of liberty embodied in paying a few dollars a month that MIGHT be spent in ways you don't like. Even with a union shop, a union member has the free speech rights to criticize both management and union leadership, so the "liberty" lost is so minor as to be almost insulting to any real idea of liberty.

This is why I liked Dean's comments-- he actually said he "hates" right-to-work laws. I hate them to, on the principle that they embody one of the worst rhetorical frauds of corporate propaganda.

what's wrong with being "forced to join the union", much like you are "forced to be a citizen." Union dues are like taxes-- the price of industrial democracy and rights in the workplace.

Nathan, I agree with you, but my point is you're preaching to the converted. Dean and other liberal speakers will never be able to make that point stick in a larger audience.

In a socialist society, unions are part of the bedrock, and your points are unarguably true. But since unions are not mentioned in the Constitution, in our society they are a bolt-on institution. What we have is a Constitutionally-protected right to form contracts unimpeded, and that's the penumbra under which unions must exist here (barring future amendments or extremely friendly Supreme Court decisions).

Again, my point is that as soon as most people hear the phrase "forced to join a union" their minds turn off and an image of the "Don't Tread On Me" flag appears. That's why boobs like Matthews use it.

Steve-- I understand your argument. I just disagree practically. Once upon a time, union security clauses were quite popular-- remember, they were official government policy in World War II, where most of them were started.

Being against free-riding is just as American as any other value-- everyone should pull their own load and all.

It's precisely because most liberals have been unwilling to stand up for pro-union values, while conservatives have trashed them, that you've ended up with the assumption of the illegitimacy of union shops. This is why I was glad to hear Dean making the unapologetic case for union security clauses.

Yes-- I'll usually use the "right to work for less" pro-union propaganda line against "right to work", or bash free riding, but it's worth stating the philosophical point of promoting industrial democracy and the obligations of industrial citizenship.

Heck, people pay their homeowner association fees, which they can't opt out of, so why is paying union dues any more coercive? I just don't buy that this argument is so hard to make-- it's just that most liberals don't spend the time to make it.

There is no need for "Right to work" laws. No one can be forced to join a union. The Supreme Court already answered this in Communication Workers of America vs. Beck.

The Communications Workers of America vs. Beck states that employees not wishing to join a union need only pay dues and fees directly associated with the negotiation and administration of the labor contract, because these are the monetary fees that they garner benefit from. This right is provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.

These workers hold all of the rights of union employees in regards to the bargaining unit but the hold no other rights or payments in regards to union membership. This includes community service (including participating in charitable events), legislative activity, cost of affiliation with non-union organizations, support of political candidates, participating in political events, recruitment of members to the union, and members-only benefits (including members-only social events). These are your options in a union workplace. You can gain the full membership of the union and the privileges that come with that, or the union can represent you during contract time and grievances and that’s it. You have to pay for this representation, but that is it.

The fact that to many people are not informed of their rights as employees under the law is biggest problem in my opinion. That goes for both views on the subject. In my opinion, all "right to work" legislation does is arbitrarily impose on employees one view on labor law. That’s the same for closed shop situations. It should not be the role of the government or unions to impose one side of the law on workers. That choice should be made by the employee himself or herself. That’s why I feel 14B should be repealed and Beck should be better enforced.

Dean’s flip-flop saddened me. First he says he feels strongly that states have the right to create their own labor laws, so he wouldn’t repeal 14B if that’s his view. That is all 14B in Taft-Hartley does. Then he says he’d sign if it got on his desk, but he won’t push the issue. You just said you feel strongly that the states have the right to create these laws? Which is it? If you’re willing to sign it into law why aren’t you willing to push for it in the legislature?

To be fair, Dean said it wouldn't be a priority to repeal 14B, since he has other labor law reforms he'd rather concentrate on since he has some sympathy for local control of laws-- which fits with his views on guns and gay unions.

But he was clear that on balance he's against right-to-work laws, which is why he'd sign the bill if it landed on his desk.

That's not a flip-flop, just a statement of priorities.

I think we're ignoring what would be a tragic side effect of repealing the NLRA - it would eliminate the jobs of those of us who work for the NLRB! In the name of government labor lawyers' right to work, have mercy!

Oh, and also, it would take away what little legal protection workers have against union-busting employers. It might not be much, but it's something. Taft-Hartley sucks, agreed, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

We're all for repealing Taft-Hartley, but dumping it and NLRA doesn't result in the freedom to engage in sympathy strikes -- unless, that is, you're okay with every employer also having the legal right to fire any sympathy striker. Or, for that mattter, any worker engaged in "concerted activity," including sympathy striking, primary striking, wearing a union button, etc. So fine, without the Act sympathy strikers won't be enjoined by courts or have ULPs filed against them -- they'll just get fired and permanently blacklisted. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

I agree that the labor movement often allows its vision to be limited by the Act, especially the definition of "employee" -- why isn't there a farmers union in the AFL-CIO? Probably because it couldn't get certified by the Board, so it wouldn't be "real." This is a significant problem. But I don't think you solve it by saying to bosses, "Fire whomever you want, whenever you want, we don't care, blacklist workers, create company unions, it's all okay now."

Nick- of course repealing the NLRA means that employers can fire sympathy strikers. They'd be able to fire regular strikers as well. Although it's not like that would change current reality much, with "replacement workers" only a half-step from firing all the employeeess.

The point is whether giving up the protections of the NLRA would be worth it to gain the power that would come from being able to engage in sympathy strikes and "hot cargo" agreements and "closed shops" and other tools that the government represses through court injunction today.

That is the point-- people think the labor laws are a one-way street, helping unions. But there are a score of repressive aspects of labor law that are WORSE than if there was no law at all.

Nathan,

It would be nice to do away with the concept of "illegal" subjects of bargaining -- i.e. closed shop (which means only current Union members get hired), real union shop (no fee payers, only full members work), hot cargo (union members can refuse to handle products not produced by union workers). That is, under Federal labor law, it's illegal to include these provisions in a contract, even if both parties agree. And there's no doubt that they all strenghen workers considerably, especially hot cargo when combined with sympathy or secondary strikes.

But back when these were common, workers were more organized and bosses less so. I'm afraid of abandoning all of this in a country full of union-busting consultants, decades of anti-union propaganda absorbed by real workers, viscious anti-worker Republicans in power, and virtually no radical political left to outflank labor. I don't think the result of repealing Federal labor law would be a thousand flowers blooming, but rather a quick march to fascism. Under current conditions, you might get a few hot cargo agreements and real closed shops, but really, it's just too easy right now for bosses to say no -- where would we realistically get these provisions? We're more like a guerilla army up against a much stronger foe, and calling them out into the battlefield for an open confrontation just seems a little suicidal to me.

The studies say RtW states do better than non-RtW states.

RtW states have lower costs of living.
RtW states have higher wages.
Rtw States have high growth in Manufacturing
RtW sttates have high growth in Agriculture.
RtW states get a surge in union membership.

RtW is good for unions, it's good for the people, and it's good for the government.

Saying the employer has the right to hire or fire those who aren't in unions is wrong. Thats like saying employers have the right to never hire black people. That's like saying employers have the right to hire only Mormons, that's like saying the employer has the right to hire only Republicans. It's even like saying the employer has the right to hire only people from Egypt, or only males. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids these.

If these are forbidden, then why shouldn't membership, or non-membership, support or non-support of a union be any different?

Heston-- Some supporting info other than raw assertion-- since the higher wages claim looks patently false.

"For some years now the differential between the wages of union and non-union workers has been narrowing. According to the June 16 issue of National Review, by 1982 the wage advantage enjoyed by union members had been reduced to 7.1 percent, and by 1985 the gap had been narrowed to 4.4 percent. In the first quarter of this year the tables were finally turned, and unionized workers are now receiving wages that are 0.8 percent less than their non-union countrymen. But what the press has rarely fully explained to the American electorate is the fact that when a state's taxes and cost of living are factored into family income figures, families in so-called "Right-to-Work" states have long enjoyed a financial advantage over families in state in which compulsory union membership still exists."
http://nj.npri.org/nj97/07/publisher.htm

"Based on the U.S. Commerce Department’s annual estimates, Idaho’s annual growth of 15.4% in per-capita personal income was the highest in the nation from 1987 to 1995. Even Jim Hawkins, Director of the Idaho Department of Commerce under Democratic Governor and Right to Work opponent Cecil Andrus admitted that Idaho’s "economic gains probably would not have been possible without the state’s Right to Work law.""
http://www.nilrr.org/morejobs.htm

Graph on possible wage increases
http://www.ocpathink.org/economics/OKMissesRTWDividend.html

"Would Right to Work (RTW) stimulate economic growth in Oklahoma?
When it comes to answering this hotly debated question, there is no substitute for careful research. Policy makers are fortunate in this respect, for there exists a large body of research devoted to carefully studying this issue. And while economists are frequently chided for their inability to come to clear-cut answers,1 RTW provides a notable exception: The literature clearly shows that RTW is correlated with state economic development. In other words, while economists often have a hard time agreeing about things, when it comes to RTW, there exists a commanding consensus that states that have RTW do better than states that don’t."
by W. Robert Reed, Ph.D.
http://www.ocpathink.org/economics/DoesRighttoWorkBoost.html

I'm looking for one study that shows that things cost less in Right to Work states, but I think this is good for now.

As for forcing people into unions:
No, they can't be forced into unions, but they can be forced to support a union without joining it.

So now the GM worker has to pay 50 dollars to the UAW and NOT get a vote in the union. If he has to pay, he might as well join. He doesn't HAVE to, but it doesn't make sense not to, when you're forced to support it.

To address what libertarins hate and do not hate.

They hate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for the same reason they hate Right to Work laws. Because it takes power away from the employer to hire whom he pleases.

If the Libertarians had it their way an Alabama store own could hire only white people, a Mormon shopeowner could hire only mormons. No Irish need apply might just come back, except now it would be no Irish, blacks, catholics, or democrats.

The question we need to ask ourselves here is who is really for big business?

The AFL-CIO, largest union in the US with 13 million members, drafted a law in the 30's requiring unions to negotiate for all employees, unionized or not. This legislation passed.

In the 60's a small post office union challenged this law in the Supreme Court. The AFL-CIO was there as well. But not to lobby with the Post office union, they were there to argue against them.

What is the solution to free-loading non-union members? to simply not give them benefits negotiated for by their union member counterparts.
The thing is that this is impossible, the very organization that drafted and has protected this law through all these years wants it, and is a labor organization; 13 out of 16 USA union members are in the AFL-CIO.

I think I have addressed all reasons presented as to why Right to Work laws are wrong.

I hope you will continue to discuss this issue with me. I and my debate partner are debating putting this very legislation into effect in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Wake Island, and the Virgin Islands. We could use all the practice we can get, which I hope you will be able to provide in part.

Heston,

There are two origins of the "exclusive bargaining agent" doctrine. One is that you don't want the boss making things better for non-union workers. "Sure you could join the union, but we'll pay you $5 more per hour if you don't!" Unions don't want bosses bribing people to drop their membership, so putting all bargaining unit employees, members and non-members, in the same boat fixes this.

The other origin, which I suspect had more influence, is that bosses want to deal with one "party" to fix issues with employees. In their 3rd-party view, they want to know which number to call to negotiate an issue -- they don't want 20 unions for 200 employees. The NLRA was a compromise: it gave workers the right to organize, but limited sit-down strikes, certain multi-union workplaces, and, through further laws, sympathy strikes, hot cargo agreements, etc. The deal with the bosses in 1936 was, "You can let your workers organize or you can let them hang you from the rafters of your factory after the revolution." It was a big victory for workers, but workers made concessions, too.

I'd suggest you look at other countries' labor laws. Someone told me once that Great Britain has no "exclusive bargaining agent" rule, but I've never actually looked into it. He said union councils negotiate contracts, but a worker can often pick his/her union based on its politics, history, militancy, etc.

Heston's recycling of that quote from the Nevada Policy Journal is enormously misleading. The relevant comparison of union versus non-union wages is not simply union members versus wage and salary earners in non-union positions. The relevant comparison is between workers in the same industry! The data that show that pay for non-union workers is higher than union workers included the paychecks for professionals such as doctors and lawyers, senior management of companies, and even CEO salary.

So, if you do that misleading comparison, you would wrongly conclude that if you kicked out the union in your own workplace, your pay would rise. It would actually drop by about 20 percent on average. That's because to get the higher pay of your "non-union countrymen," you have to quit being a steelworker or a clerical worker, and start being a surgeon or a CEO.

And the reference to being better off financially in the Right to Freeload states versus the Pay for What You Get states, after you take into account state taxes, is also misleading. It is also wrong. Take Connecticut, where workers pay for the benefits they get, versus Idaho, where workers have the right to freeload on the benefits. The latest data show that per capita income in Connecticut is $43K and in Idaho, it is $25K. According to the conservative National Tax Foundation, the government in Connecticut (state and local) take $3K of that per capita income, while in Idaho their take is only $2K. So if you take into account those state taxes, as the Nevada Policy Journal suggests, the folks in Idaho are left with $23K, while the folks in Connecticut have $40K. I guess if you think Idaho "enjoys" a financial advantage, maybe you also think that Bush can balance budgets.

And on Idaho's big growth from 1987 to 1995: Good for them, but as of today Idaho's per capita income is still higher than only six other states. Given that a lot of it was due to mining, it seems silly to say that fast growth from 1987 to 1995 was due to their Right to Freeload labor laws. I mean, what was the risk that a silver mining company was going to decide that it would create jobs in union-friendly Rhode Island, anyway?

So it's worth sacrificing religious liberty for more convenient labor representation?

Catholics feel abortion is murder and that the death penalty is also murder.

Unions usually support pro abortion candidates, and those that don't, the few conservatives ones there may be support Republicans that are more often than not pro-death penalty.

So the Catholic workers is forced into the AFL-CIO, and is thus forcecd to fund the propogation of what he believes to be murder.

Mike,

First of all, Right to Work laws in the way I'm talking of do not ban unions. They merely say you can't be fired for joining one. Or not joining one.

Secondly, the "right to freeload" as you amusingly call it was pushed for by the AFL-CIO itself, on TWO OCCASSIONS! as I've already said before in this topic. If THEY of all people want the privilege to represent those who don't want to be represented by them, then why should you be worried about it? The law that makes this the case was even challenged by another union, but the AFL-CIO defended YET AGAIN.

As for Idaho and it's growth:

1) It has the fastest income growth, regardless of where it stands.

2) The cost of living is significantly lower in Idaho as opposed to say, big union Michigan.

3)The anti-right to work attorney general even said he believed it would not have been possible for Idaho to make such leaps in growth without Right to Work laws.

Lastly, I don't believe I saw any proof that the Nevada Policy Journal statistic is misleading, secondly.