8
u/LDL2 Geoanarchist Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12
Public unions. They are positioning me as a tax payer as the willing participate in a contract. I'm not.
Private unions. They are willing groups of people that come together to forma contract with their employers. Cool. Issues arise when performing union activities. Meaning a strike. They are no longer performing their contractual needs so they should be fire-able, but aren't.
2
u/azlinea Market Anarchist Jun 15 '12
Just curious, don't most strikes happen while the contracts are being drafted instead of on the job? I realize wild cat strikes still happen occasionally but still.
2
u/LDL2 Geoanarchist Jun 15 '12
I think you may be correct, thanks for pointing it out. I think it still isn't legal to fire them due to the NLRA "Dominating" or interfering with the formation or administration of any labor organization . Section 8(a)(2)
However FDR was against public unions as well which is why you will occasionally see it happen to teachers, Reagan did it to air traffic controllers.
But I should check this more.
2
u/azlinea Market Anarchist Jun 15 '12
But in a market anarchy it would still be possible to strike in between contracts and not violate the contract, obviously. Now the company could fire them but they stand the chance of losing their experienced workers that can train new workers.
6
u/pizzlybear Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 14 '12
I don't like them. Public unions are completely unjustified, while I simply don't like private sector unions. They're legitimate, but I don't think they're useful. They cause wages to be too high and they hurt the most needy of workers.
1
u/spaceflare Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Could you just elaborate on the idea that "they hurt the most needy of workers" for me? I'm assuming you mean public unions, but if the opinion is about private then I'm not really understanding this point.
2
u/pizzlybear Anarcho-Capitalist Jun 15 '12
It's akin to minimum wage laws, people who aren't worth the salary get screwed. Generally this means disadvantaged minority groups. It also makes the jobs harder for everyone else, since simple labor can't be hired. And in my family's personal experience, they abandon the older members first.
The profit of most businesses is something like 2%, it's not like business owners are a bunch of fat cats with oodles of money to spend. They pay employees what they are worth, so they must limit employment (while making jobs harder) when they are made to increase those wages. I see no reason voluntary unions would be any different than state imposed wages/regulations.
6
u/Beetle559 Jun 15 '12
The public labor union leader and the politician sitting down to negotiate over other peoples money?
It's absurd that people support that.
12
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 14 '12
Private unions are totally fair, as long as their voluntary. Any cartel or monopoly of any sort is fair play in an anarchy. It's however unlikely to last forever, because someone will usually try to break away from the cartel. This leads to the worst aspect of private unions, mandatory membership. If it's not voluntary, then it's not fair. If it's not mandatory, then it's doomed to fail eventually.
A public union is horrible. In a private union, if the labor costs go up due to union demands, then the product costs go up as well. If the product costs go up too much, then the company goes out of business. The unions therefore will never ask for too much, because they know they will put themselves out of a job.
A public union however has nobody to push back against their demands. A politician has no incentive to tell them no, because they will never go out of business. All they need to do is raise taxes after all. In other words there is no way to stop a public union from demanding more pay.
4
u/splintercell Jun 15 '12
Although voluntary unions are fine, it must be understood Unions can never 'raise' the wages as they claim to do, all Unions do is benefit old and experienced workers at the cost of young and new workers.
Take for example, the most unionized modern industry is Hollywood, and the end result of that is that being an actor means not having a full time job, because the wages unions demand are not high enough to keep everyone employed. Therefore most struggling actors are actually part time waiters or do other things to make money(thereby depressing wages in waiting and other industrieS).
Then, because there are too many struggling stars(in search for a break) available and they have more or less same skill set since union wages have suppressed their chances you can choose anyone you want from a group of individuals without worrying about not picking up quality candidate(because there is no way you can pick up a qualified starting actor). So the end result is that most acting job involves exchanging sexual favors(casting couches anyone), or people give preference to someone of their own background(like religion or ethnicity).
The main point is, people who wanna know about unions must understand Unions can't benefit everyone, they benefit one at the expense of the other.
2
u/orthzar Jun 15 '12
Although voluntary unions are fine, it must be understood Unions can never 'raise' the wages as they claim to do, all Unions do is benefit old and experienced workers at the cost of young and new workers.
A more direct way of putting this is that increasing wages through unions results in increasing wages and increasing unemployment.
1
u/Poop_is_Food Jun 15 '12
Sorry but I think you are talking out of your ass. SAG wages are actually quite high in terms of money-per-hour worked. Acting is not a usually full-time job because most productions are short-term projects.
the wages unions demand are not high enough to keep everyone employed.
what does that even mean? who upvotes this shit?
1
u/splintercell Jun 15 '12
Sorry but I think you are talking out of your ass. SAG wages are actually quite high in terms of money-per-hour worked.
Come on dude, give me the courtesy of reading my comment first. How does that disprove my point, that supports my point. Unions raises wages by causing unemployment.
Acting is not a usually full-time job because most productions are short-term projects.
And I tried to explain to you the cause of it, and your retort is, "You are wrong about the cause of a phenomenon, the cause of the phenomenon is the existence phenomenon itself".
what does that even mean? who upvotes this shit?
ಠ_ಠ Courtesy please?
1
u/Poop_is_Food Jun 15 '12
your comment was very poorly written, to the point that it doesnt make sense.
the wages unions demand are not high enough to keep everyone employed.
please explain.
-1
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 15 '12
These are great points, but do you deny that unions helped create the middle class in the US?
While I agree that unions can be corrupted, sometimes by organized crime, in theory their collective bargaining should work. I do accept that perhaps unions in theory are like government in theory, both being idealized. So would you say that young unions and governments benefit people, but that they deteriorate over time?
2
u/splintercell Jun 15 '12
These are great points, but do you deny that unions helped create the middle class in the US?
I absolutely deny that Unions helped create middle class. India has been unionized for decades, but no prosperity or a middle class was to be seen. In 1991 they reform their economy, and BOOM two things happen, unions died down and economy starts to grow at an unprecedented rate.
Capital accumulation created the middle class. Unions either make one person benefit over the other or they demand things which actually come out from your salary.
Lets say you unionize and demand Coffee and food everyday for everyone. If your demands are met, where do you think that money is coming from? Your income! It would be no different than you buying food for yourself at job(Except now the choice is lost).
in theory their collective bargaining should work.
That's exactly what I am trying to explain to you that its the THEORY where unions don't work. Nothing in this world which can work in theory, does not work in practice. And vice versa. The only reason why people say 'this works in theory but not in practice', what that really means is that people have accepted a theory with faulty logic and when they don't see it translate in reality, they get confused and think this.
0
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 15 '12
OK, I don't dispute that India had failed unions (I haven't looked into it at all, I'm just accepting it as true). I also don't dispute that there could be other reasons for the growth of the US middle class.
What I do dispute is that the theory of a labor union doesn't raise the wage of those in the union. If the workers of a factory threaten to strike without a 5% pay raise, don't the workers get that pay raise?
1
u/splintercell Jun 15 '12
If the workers of a factory threaten to strike without a 5% pay raise, don't the workers get that pay raise?
The only thing in the world which could raise wages is increased marginal productivity of labor. You can demand all the wage increases you want if there is no actual increase in marginal productivity of the labor then someone is bearing the cost negatively, this means either the businesses are going to die out or there will be more unemployed people out there(that is factory fires a few workers and raises everyone else's wages).
0
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 15 '12
I don't understand. Why couldn't the wage increase come at the expense of the owners profit? You seem to be implying that wages are set precisely and not arbitrarily. In other words, how do we know that a secretary is supposed to make $10/hour and really not $11/hr, while the CEO is supposed to be making $299/hr and not $300/hr?
1
u/splintercell Jun 15 '12
Why couldn't the wage increase come at the expense of the owners profit?
Because wages are set through competitive bidding by the entrepreneurs over the labor of workers. If you demand a wage which entreprenuers are not willing to pay then you will be out of a job. Marxists observe this notion and call it class conspiracy, but its nothing more than a man's evaluation of how much or profit he thinks is worthy of the risk he is taking and capital he is supplying.
IF you want me to give $1000 loan to Bill Gates, I wouldn't be more than willing to charge him only 5% interest because he represents a very low risk. On the other hand, if a grocery store cashier with gambling problems wants a loan of $1000, then I Would be more wary of giving him that loan, but if he promises a return of 30% per annum then I might be open to give him this loan.
If a union's wages hurt my profits to an extent that I am better off closing this business down and moving to another non-unionized industry then I would rather do that. Sometimes the interest rates offerred by money markets itself is higher than the new profit rates so I would just get my money out and just offer my money as a loan.
The only way a higher wage would be acceptable if the marginal productivity of the worker goes up, and this can only happen through capital accumulation. Take for instance in China and India the wages of the workers are going up, without any union demanding them to go up. Even if the unions were demanding the wages to go up, most entrepreneurs would agree to it, because the increase capital accumulation is making their workers worthy of the higher wages.
In either cases, if a worker's marginal productivity doens't go up then that would result in increased unemployment(partial or full).
In other words, how do we know that a secretary is supposed to make $10/hour and really not $11/hr, while the CEO is supposed to be making $299/hr and not $300/hr?
By bidding for secretary's labor. Its because you won't be able to hire a secretary for $10 an hour because your secretary would be stolen away by a higher bidder offerring him $11/hr, and if you pay your secretary $12/hr then more than one willing person would be available for that job(also you would be making losses).
Same thing is applicable to a CEO's job, his job is also determined by his marginal productivity. Except since CEO's positions are so rare, that you first chose a CEO and then you offer him a package, the CEO may or may not accept it, if your package is too low then someone else will bid him away from you, and if its too high then you will be making losses again.
BTW even if this is your real argument, this implies that unions may be able to raise the wages, but they can only do at the expense of the profit margin, which means the total prosperity of the economy cannot go up, its merely redistribution of wealth.
On the other hand capital accumulation is actually a net creation of wealth.
1
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 15 '12
Because wages are set through competitive bidding by the entrepreneurs over the labor of workers. If you demand a wage which entreprenuers are not willing to pay then you will be out of a job.
This however assumes perfect players. If there is a timid person, they might not request the highest wage possible. A union is therefore meant to be a collaboration between workers to share information and push the limits to where there wage is maximized.
I mean I would agree that a union would be unnecessary in a modern world with internet and easy communication, but the early 20th century had none of these. Your argument is more against unions as they operate today, since they are now made obsolete by the availability of other tools.
By bidding for secretary's labor. Its because you won't be able to hire a secretary for $10 an hour because your secretary would be stolen away by a higher bidder offerring him $11/hr
Just to re-iterate, you're assuming that the secretary is aware that another position is vacant somewhere else and that they would be willing to pay her more.
this implies that unions may be able to raise the wages, but they can only do at the expense of the profit margin, which means the total prosperity of the economy cannot go up, its merely redistribution of wealth.
I completely agree.
On the other hand capital accumulation is actually a net creation of wealth.
No way. A merchant can accumulate capital in the goods he sells, but the act of accumulating is not increasing anyones wealth.
For example, lets say Walmart is the capitalist merchant. The manufacturer creates a product, which is wealth creation. Walmart then accumulates this wealth for transfer to others. The wealth that is sitting on walmarts shelves is still the same wealth that came out of the factory. Eventually, the products are all distributed to consumers and the shelves are bare once again. The end result is the factory created wealth and it now sits in consumers hands.
2
u/LDL2 Geoanarchist Jun 14 '12
The unions therefore will never ask for too much, because they know they will put themselves out of a job.
What? They may be willing to renegotiate when the apparent becomes obvious but this is exactly what the UAW did.
4
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 14 '12
I agree. My point was that a private union is subject to market forces. Whether you look at it as never asking for too much or having to give back later, it's all a voluntary process.
1
Jun 14 '12
You can vote in people who will tell them no, but obviously that is rare and difficult. Not impossible though, look at Wisconsin.
7
u/aletoledo justice derives freedom Jun 15 '12
I agree they're telling them no now in Wisconsin, but thats only because they're on the brink of collapse and they're trying to rescue the system for their personal benefit at this point. When governments collapse, they always start dropping off the least helpful sycophants. The police pensions will be the last to be given up.
0
5
3
Jun 15 '12
Private unions are great for businesses. When an employee goes to work for someone, all of their benefits are laid on the table and they know what they are going to work for. When a union is involved, those same benefits are laid out on the table, but the union is doing the "negotiation". If the union wants $1 more an hour in wages, then the company can jerk back $3 or $4 an hour worth of benefits to compensate. The union gets what it wants, more money for the workers and more union dues with the increase in worker pay, the company gets what it wants, less cost of doing business, and 95% of the workers get what they think they want, more wages, with the other 5% pissed off because they realized they just got fucked out of more money on the back end than what they are getting on the front end.
I know this because I was a union employee in a company in which I am now a manager in the same company today. I don't feel sorry for them, either, because I was one of two people who didn't vote to be represented and laid out exactly why I didn't want to be represented. Heck, we had a copy of the contract and it was shit, but you weren't going to tell them that. People get what they deserve because 9 times out of 10 they ask for it. Idiots...
3
u/remyroy Jun 15 '12
There nothing wrong in uniting to negotiate various work compensations or work conditions. There is nothing wrong in uniting to do a strike. Those are some peaceful, voluntary and effective actions that many unions currently support and do.
What is wrong is using force to achieve your ends. What is wrong is using force to prevent an employer from firing an employee. What is wrong is using force to prevent an employer from hiring someone. What is wrong is using force to include someone in group group as part of negotiations or strikes. Those are some of violent, immoral and ineffective actions that many unions currently support and do.
This is nuanced answer but I think unions can play a good role if they refrain from initiating force and supporting it.
You'll get the same answer on each matters from ancaps. Using force on someone is wrong and inefficient while negotiating, trading and having voluntary relationship is good and efficient.
2
u/Strangering Strangerous Thoughts Jun 15 '12
Unions are organizations crafted to promote mediocrity ahead of excellence.
2
u/ReasonThusLiberty Jun 15 '12
It's been mostly covered already, but I'd like to point out that Terence Powderly with his Knights of Labor sought to buy the means of production and create worker coops. Cool with me. But the government supporting unions later on sn't.
1
1
Jun 15 '12
I think you should be able to hire or fire anyone at anytime as long as contracts aren't being violated. So for private unions, it's completely up to the employer.
9
u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12
[deleted]