Here are a few articles on the subject:
CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news/economy/michigan-right-to-work/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57558290-10391739/obama-takes-on-union-fight-in-michigan/
NBC News: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/10/15825072-gop-set-to-deliver-blow-to-labor-in-union-heavy-michigan?lite
This Open Forum is dedicated to a discussion on Michigan's impending new Right-to-Work law.
My opinion, in short, is that while I support this move, I want to establish my opinion on unions first: I'm vehemently opposed to unions. I think they're an all-too-powerful entity that inefficiently extracts over-compensation from employers at the cost of the employer's livelihood, while often over-rewarding workers who undeservingly receive higher-than-market compensation. I think unions engage in shady, often violent, strong-arm tactics, and I think they disrupt the notion of freedom and free markets. I think that any time a wage rate is artificially altered whereas the settled-upon rate is not a decision reached by employer and his/her employee on an individual basis (yes, workers are all different, and they work individually and get paid individually), market forces get distorted and the employer usually loses out. Unions are monopolistic beasts, sucking up the supply of labor in what is usually a "pay/compensate us more or no one works" proposition. I think they're unethical, out of date, and I think they do more harm than good.
But I don't think they should be outlawed.
After reading this you might think, "what the heck does he stand for?"
My answer: Freedom.
People can assemble as they see fit. Unions can exist as they see fit. If they want to strike and attempt to push wages higher by absorbing all the labor in a geographic area, making labor so rare that employers must pay a higher wage in order to attract someone to work, so be it (though it is interesting; collusion is illegal on the business side). On the flip side of that coin, if an employer wants to skirt the unions' move to hire workers, so be it. Additionally, if the employer wants to relocate, so be it. It's simple free-market economics. From the employer's view, if labor is too expensive, the employer can try to find someone who is willing to do the work, or it can leave. From the workers' view, if the wage rate is too low, they can try to push for higher wages either together on on their own. Yes, this is how freedom works.
But no where in this country should someone be compelled to join a union. Joining a union should not be a requirement for employment. It must be stated that it's up to the worker to choose for whom he shall work. For example, if I don't like my employer's sick-day policy, I can leave and work somewhere else. Similarly, if I don't like the idea that my employer only hires union employees, I can choose not to work there. This is free market labor economics 101. The problem lies in the issue of collusion. If ALL employers hired only union employees, (again, this is usually achieved by the maneuvers of the union, often engaging in strong-arm, monopolistic tactics), where does the freedom to choose lie for an employee? Of course, one can argue that based on my recent writings about Modern Federalism, that if an employee doesn't like it, he can seek employment in a different state, and that's a fair argument. But at the same time, I'm not sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison. Being required to assemble into an organization that doesn't represent an employee's wishes seems un-American. In order to pursue happiness, an American usually has to work, and work begets sustenance. A requirement for sustenance should not be a choice between compulsion into assembling into a union or remaining unemployed. In my opinion, while unions should have the right to exist, they shouldn't have the clout and power they do. I believe Right-to-Work laws, as basic as they seem, should be passed in every state. I think it's a fair balance between allowing unions to exist and the workers being able to choose if they'd like to join one or not. Frankly, I'm tired unions saying, "this will reduce our power." In my opinion, that's a good thing. Employment shouldn't be about "power"... it should be about working for whom you see fit, with whom you see fit, and under whom you see fit, for a wage you see fit. Freedom to choose is the essence of Right-to-Work legislation, and I'm not sure how that gets washed over in the media.
What do YOU think? Do you agree with Right-to-Work laws? Do you support Michigan's move? Please share your thoughts and opinions below.
Unions are the SCUM of the EARTH
ReplyDeleteHi LME - I wrote about my view of unions in general yesterday, and of having been a member of both a public and a private union in the past.
ReplyDeleteI agree that private sector unions should not be outlawed. Even though the union leadership often twists their right to free association in unpleasant ways - they do have that right and it's up to the worker to resist if they see fit.
But...as I wrote yesterday, even in my RTW state of Nev. resistance is often easier said than done. In addition to bashing from their union 'rep', resisters are often subject to abuse from their co-workers as well - egged on, of course, by the union.
As one who's been on the receiving end of this behavior - I'll say it's a pretty sick and twisted way to do business.
I do believe Congress needs to REMOVE wording in the Labor Law that EXEMPTS union leadership from prosecution for evil deeds inflicted on unwilling workers and company heads in the name of union 'organizing' which have included destruction of property AND even murder.
They ALSO need to repeal Davis/Bacon - a law that states ALL Government construction work - (0's much touted 'infrastructure' work) MUST go to union workers.
I believe THIS law is directly AND indirectly responsible for the astronomical costs of rebuilding/repairing our 'crumbling roads and highways'. Work slowdowns and cost overages with union labor are not the exception - they're the norm.
I'm sure you've seen it, too - one guy working on a road project - and four MORE guys standing around - watching him work.
As I said yesterday - PUBLIC sector unions should NEVER have been allowed in the first place. Even the BIGGEST of the BIG government guys, FDR, thought they'd be a BAD idea.
In the private sector, unions can negotiate and if/when their demands are unreasonable - the company goes broke.
Not so with the public sector... MOST times, they're basically negotiating with THEMSELVES - in that THEY elected the officials they're negotiating WITH.
When the union's unreasonable demands are met - the official is the 'good guy' and instead of a company owner making the choice to stay open or close - THEY have the POWER to force the taxpayer to eat the bill.
Any taxpayer pushback is greeted with 'you just hate kids' or 'there won't be enough police to prevent your murder'... or other ridiculous claims.
Police and Fire should NOT be exempt from this either. SOME if not most of these depts. have a 'no strike clause' in their contracts, but I've seen more than once these workers come down with their own version of work stoppage in the form of 'blue flu'.
This is not to say that police and fire don't do good work. My husband is a retired police officer. However, he retired 10 years ago - and we can NOT believe the increases in pay and benefits that the men and women of his old department NOW enjoy. It's CRAZY and it's UnStainable.
As for fire, in the cities fire departments are necessary, not so much in the rural areas. They're simply too far away to do any good when an incident happens.
Rurally, unpaid volunteers are the way to go, both for efficiency AND cost.
(cont.)
I was a member of a volunteer f.d. in rural southern NV. Our equipment and training was supplied by the county. WE supplied the personnel. As far as fires go in the country - aside from keeping the blaze from spreading - MOST engines and squads are simply TOO late to save the structure... MOST calls were medical.
DeleteAs we were 60 miles from the nearest hospital, care and transport of our sick and/or injured was provided by us... and IF a transfer was needed to a more highly trained unit, it was usually made to a PRIVATE ambulance co. The medi-vac chopper could sometimes be utilized, but its ETA was normally LONGER than two ambulances meeting on the highway to make the transfer.
Volunteer EMT's save lives AND money : )
ALL unions are outdated and no longer needed, BUT if a PRIVATE SECTOR worker CHOOSES to belong - so be it; he/she SHOULD NOT be FORCED as a 'condition of employment'.
PUBLIC sector unions need to GO.
Unions are worried that non union members would freeload and receive union benefits without paying for them? So wait, unions want people to pay for benefits they receive. Hmmm, don't you think it should work the same with taxes. Democrats want to tax the rich, but aren't a lot of people just going to get a lot of benefits off the rich without paying for these benefits?
ReplyDelete@MN 4 Rick - "Unions are worried that non union members would freeload and receive union benefits without paying for them?"
DeleteThat's really rich for unions to make that a 'talking point.'
But you have it right... like the Government UNIONS do NOT pay ANY benefits to workers from their OWN funds (they save THOSE for electing union-friendly Demoncrat shills).
They 'negotiate' contracts for payments FROM employers into those benefits(retirement/health ins, etc.)
UNION outlay for those benefits is exactly ZIP!
Like the gov. they demand their 'dues' and give little or nothing to those workers who actually DO their jobs. BUT...They're all over (the company) when a bad worker gets caught screwing up, (hard to CATCH - as stewards get PAID to cover for said screw-ups) and the company attempts to discipline or replace the bad employee.
Well said, LME: I'm vehemently opposed to unions. I think they're an all-too-powerful entity that inefficiently extracts over-compensation from employers at the cost of the employer's livelihood, while often over-rewarding workers who undeservingly receive higher-than-market compensation. I think unions engage in shady, often violent, strong-arm tactics, and I think they disrupt the notion of freedom and free markets. I think that any time a wage rate is artificially altered whereas the settled-upon rate is not a decision reached by employer and his/her employee on an individual basis (yes, workers are all different, and they work individually and get paid individually), market forces get distorted and the employer usually loses out. Unions are monopolistic beasts, sucking up the supply of labor in what is usually a "pay/compensate us more or no one works" proposition. I think they're unethical, out of date, and I think they do more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteNo, no violence here: http://www.libertynews.com/2012/12/union-goons-tear-down-afp-tent-at-michigan-right-to-work-rally-video/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
DeleteI'm for the concept of unions, but I agree with the essence of LME's first paragraph in that many do more to hurt the employers (and ultimately, the employees) than help them as of late. I do not agree with forced membership, forced fees/dues, forced seniority and/or promises of no lay-offs or firing, or any other major manipulative, strong-handed exploitation of the employer and/or its employees.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would go as far to say that they're outdated, as I believe they still can serve a valuable purpose, but for the most part I do still agree with a lot of what LME said.
More specifically, I do believe that we all should and continue to have the right to unite under a set of ideals/principles/standards as a group of people in or under a private market/employer. But again, membership should be optional, conditions should be as well, and there certainly shouldn’t be any sort of absolute power.
My guess is that private-sector unions are mostly on the way out. As LME pointed out in his blog, unions exist to obtain above-market compensation for their members. That works in a limited market where the union can establish a monopoly and the employer has no alternative source of labor. (I won't get into why thuggish unions have at times seemed justified as a counter to thuggish employers. Those conditions generally do not apply anywhere in this country today.) The union strategy breaks down when the market is opened up to external competition. In the global economic environment we have today, American unionized labor has priced itself out of the market. That is essentially a self-correcting condition. Jobs will go where the labor is available at market rates and the unions will disappear because they no longer provide any value to their members.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that all private-sector unions will go away, just most, depending on the nature of the business. Pro sports is, I think, an area where employee unions make sense and will continue to function. Manufacturing? That ship has sailed.
Public-sector unions are a different animal altogether. Their jobs cannot be outsourced, the business cannot be relocated, and the employer has very different concerns than a private business would have. Government employers are typically not very price-sensitive in anything they do -- after all, it's not their money being spent -- and they are subject to what amounts to blackmail/extortion tactics deployed by the unions during election season. Public-sector unions are really an abomination that should be outlawed. The only real justification for any union is a claim that, without the union, the employer would treat its employees unfairly. Since a public employee really works for all of us, his call for a union amounts to a slander on the public at large. Ironically, the would-be public union member is accusing himself, as a member of the public, of unfair practices.
I went back and re-read the bit on Modern Federalism to see how it might relate to this particular issue.
ReplyDeleteMy view would be that, as a federal union of sovereign States, Federal law should only be used to enforce principles that are near universally accepted among the People of all of the States. Those things might change over time, allowing the addition of new Federal law or requiring the repeal of existing law, but the federal ideal would remain constant.
In terms of right-to-work, if an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that every shop should be open, then we should have a national right-to-work law. Otherwise, we should have exactly what we have today -- some states are right-to-work, some allow closed-shop arrangements.
Now, if only we could get the Federal camel to pull its nose out of all of the other tents it currently roots around in for no good reason other than it can.
I was a union boilermaker for twenty six years, initially a sound organizaion but by the time I retired the field dues was nearly 7% of gross wages beside our monthly local dues that grew each year. The international continued to rewrite rules and near the end were like an adversary than a "brother". Recently the union demands at Hostess caused that company to go out of business. On the flip side, if it were up to companies workers would be making a nickle an hour. Robert
ReplyDelete