# Michigan Contemplates Becoming Right-To-Work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673 "2012-12-11T02:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/281 "2012-12-15T22:53:05Z")
Wasn’t St. Ronnie of California the president of that union? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/282 "2012-12-15T22:53:44Z")
Yeah, but that was before he [del]became[/del] found Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/283 "2012-12-16T11:08:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m guessing you read Vonnegut’s satirical story about Harrison Bergeron. Also guessing its the only Vonnegut you’ve read. Yes. And no. Why in world would you imagine that? It’s true that here on the SDMB the opportunities to drop an offhand reference to ice-nine, or the writings of Kilgore Trout, are few and far between. What possible basis could you have for guessing I would somehow have found only one short story from one of the more well-known SF authors ever? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/284 "2012-12-16T11:10:44Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Then what does RG3 have to do with anything in your analogy? Why even bring him up? > > Your analogy fails because it has no relation at all to anything that happens regarding unions and employers. Unions don’t seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee. Yes, they do. In fact, their attempts to do so are the subject of the Michigan legislation under discussion now. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/285 "2012-12-16T18:51:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, they do. In fact, their attempts to do so are the subject of the Michigan legislation under discussion now. No, they don’t. For the second time I’ll ask you to please explain why you think your scenario is illustrative and/or analogous. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/286 "2012-12-16T19:34:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Your analogy fails because it has no relation at all to anything that happens regarding unions and employers. Unions don’t seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee. Unions fought against a law that makes it illegal to refuse to hire only union workers. So unions DID seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee. You can’t get more basic than that. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/287 "2012-12-16T19:45:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Unions fought against a law that makes it illegal to refuse to hire only union workers. > > So unions DID seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee. > > You can’t get more basic than that. No, they didn’t. Your terse “explanations” and glossing over of facts aren’t helping your case any. Why are you in favor of restricting the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/288 "2012-12-16T21:00:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …So unions DID seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee… Insisting that a prospective employee must at least exist is a reasonable requirement. A valid nuetral justification if ever I’ve heard one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/289 "2012-12-17T02:07:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No, they didn’t. Your terse “explanations” and glossing over of facts aren’t helping your case any. > > Why are you in favor of restricting the freedom of employers to hire whomever they choose? I am not. I’m in favor of letting them hire, and fire, who they please. But since they can’t always legally fire union workers for striking, I am in favor of curing that inequity by making any contract that purports to require an employer only hire union members void as a matter of public policy. That’s not my first choice. My first choice is to repeal the legal armor that shields union workers from being fired if they strike. That would create true freedom on both sides. But since that appears untenable, I accept this compromise. Meanwhile, you’re dodging my analogy. The union opposed this law. They wanted to continue the practice of requiring union membership of all employees, contrary to your quote, but perfectly illustrated by my analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/290 "2012-12-17T02:09:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Insisting that a prospective employee must at least exist is a reasonable requirement. A valid nuetral justification if ever I’ve heard one. I quoted the language “existing employee” from SnowBo. It refers not to whether an employee has corporeal existence, but rather whether the prospective hire is already an employee. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/291 "2012-12-17T03:31:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > As friend Cutter John points out, the pressures are seldom covert and/or legally actionable. A man who needs his job as badly as most wage-earners do is not empowered to negotiate, the playing field is more like a ladder than a table. For the purposes of this post, I’m assuming you meant “overt”, because the post seems to make more sense that way. Correct me if I’m wrong. Do you know how many minimum-wage violations it takes to put an employer in prison? [Two.](http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm) That cite also goes over the record keeping requirements that make such conduct difficult to conceal. Also, violators are [liable](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216)to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. As well as employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Plus attorney’s fees. Thirdly, such violations as do occur are [prosecuted.](http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/human-resources/employers-paying-penalty-wage-and-hour-violations) Still and all, here’s another role for unions other than trying to drive up wages with coercion: acting as a watchdog group and providing legal support when such claims do arise. > [@elucidator](#): > > From the other side, how many times have you heard about Wall Street falling in love with the new CEO-SOB of WeSaySo Corp., who’s “lean and mean”, gonna “cut the fat”, trim labor costs. Because the Free Market says so, blessings and peace be upon its name. > > If all significant power lies on one side of the equation, we not simply invite the abuse of that power, we reward the men who do. They are the winners, to be admired. You mock the free market as some sort of religious item of faith, but it’s been the most successful engine for human comfort and dignity in human history. It destroys aristocracy and privilege, because it’s a true meritocracy. Opposition to a free market is opposition to freedom itself, because a free market is nothing more than free exchanges. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you here. The advantages still lie almost entirely with the employer, despite more than 60 years of Taft-Hartley, IMO. From the inception of organizing to negotiations, the advantages are far and away with the employer. Some of those advantages are what prompted the EFCA’s formulation. And even once the contract is signed, often the employer still has significant advantages and power over his employees. We can disagree on the exact balance, but the employer’s advantages are not _unfair_ advantages. If I need my job more than my employer needs me, that simply _is_, it’s not right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/292 "2012-12-17T03:54:36Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > should, however, have some time tomorrow afternoon where my gig should permit me to post, and if necessary I’ll try and explain what I was hinting at about the EFCA in both this and my previous post. I have re-read some material about the EFCA. It consisted of three changes to the NLRA. The first, eliminated the secret-ballot option in favor of a card check, is unacceptable as an amendment. I would rather the NLRA certification process be eliminated altogether, with unions free to decide their procedures for organization and leadership. What the EFCA sought instead was to removed the secret ballot option, which an employer can request under NLRA. Card check-only votes are wide-open for intimidation and other forms of coercion, and thus I cannot support the idea. The second empowered the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to act as binder arbitrators from union contracts. After 90 days without a contract, the FMCS could be petitioned to act as arbitrators, with the result binding for two years. This is also unacceptable, both parties should be free to not reach an agreement. The failure to do so is not prima facie evidence of bad faith by either party, and bringing in another layer of government intervention between union and employer will only make the labor law situation worse. The third change wasn’t overly objectionable, it just increased penalties for violations of the existing NLRA. Can you give me the case for why the EFCA should have been passed? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Unions don’t seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee. Well, only in that they try to keep them from becoming an “existing” employee in the first place. For a glamorous Hollywood example, there’s the [Director’s Guild of America.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_Guild_of_America#Labor_Agreements) The DGA has agreements with the various production companies to only use union labor in the departments of a film production. DGA members are also forbidden from working for a production company that has not signed such an agreement. So, if you’re a hard-working up-and-coming non-union key grip, the DGA will absolutely hinder you from getting a job. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/293 "2012-12-17T07:52:47Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I have re-read some material about the EFCA. It consisted of three changes to the NLRA. > > The first, eliminated the secret-ballot option in favor of a card check, is unacceptable as an amendment. I would rather the NLRA certification process be eliminated altogether, with unions free to decide their procedures for organization and leadership. What the EFCA sought instead was to removed the secret ballot option, which an employer can request under NLRA. Card check-only votes are wide-open for intimidation and other forms of coercion, and thus I cannot support the idea. You’ve skipped over the whole point of the EFCA. _Why_ was this change sought? It was intended to remedy the fact that an employer has a captive and dependent audience who are subject to intimidation and other forms of coercion. [Confessions of a Union Buster](http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Union-Buster-Marty-Levitt/dp/0517583305) talks about some of what occurs between employers and employees between the time the petition is filed and the election happens. It’s a good read. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The second empowered the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to act as binder arbitrators from union contracts. After 90 days without a contract, the FMCS could be petitioned to act as arbitrators, with the result binding for two years. This is also unacceptable, both parties should be free to not reach an agreement. The failure to do so is not prima facie evidence of bad faith by either party, and bringing in another layer of government intervention between union and employer will only make the labor law situation worse. Indefinite non-negotiation isn’t acceptable; it’s certainly not negotiating in good faith. Just over half (56%) of unions that win elections ever get a signed contract. This part of the EFCA sought to remedy that tactic. Look at what happened between Blue Man Group and IATSE Local 720, for instance. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The third change wasn’t overly objectionable, it just increased penalties for violations of the existing NLRA. Yeah, the fines are fairly cheap. Cheap enough that many companies (and even some municipalities) have paid the fines for months or even years rather than allow their employees to exercise their freedom to associate. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you give me the case for why the EFCA should have been passed? I’ve tried to explain why it was first proposed. If you don’t think of the items perceived as problems by the authors and supporters of the bill as problems yourself, you may not think the case for support is very strong. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, only in that they try to keep them from becoming an “existing” employee in the first place. For a glamorous Hollywood example, there’s the [Director’s Guild of America.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_Guild_of_America#Labor_Agreements) The DGA has agreements with the various production companies to only use union labor in the departments of a film production. DGA members are also forbidden from working for a production company that has not signed such an agreement. So, if you’re a hard-working up-and-coming non-union key grip, the DGA will absolutely hinder you from getting a job. It won’t hinder you from getting _a_ job; it might hinder you from getting _a particular_ (i.e. union contracted) job. But if the employer wants to only use union employees, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do so? If you’re for the free market, you should be against this bill, as it restricts an employer’s right to choose to only hire union employees. If you’re truly for a free market, you should be able to admit that this bill in Michigan is about applying the force of law to shrink and ultimately eradicate unions, both public and private. Mediation (what the EFCA sought) is for finding middle, equitable ground; this bill is about compulsion and excision. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/294 "2012-12-17T12:44:41Z")
Again we see the fallacious claim that government intervention to protect us from anti-competitive practices is inconsistent with a free-market economy, as if it’s an all or nothing choice where we must accept cartels and monopolies, both which, of course, decrease free competition. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Card check-only votes are wide-open for intimidation and other forms of coercion, and thus I cannot support the idea. There are plenty of posters on this board who think it is only just to be able to know which of your coworkers should be intimidated so that they can be “held accountable”. And the companies do it too, so it’s ok. Rather than address their poor behavior, we’ll enable ours, because it’s the only way. There are some lengthy discussions that have already occurred. > **[Union Voting: Why Not Private?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479535)** > > There are ads running in Oregon ragging on the Dem Senatorial candidate for voting against a law that would require secret ballots when voting for union representation. I know as a liberal I’m supposed to support unions (even though historically they... > **[Employee Free Choice Act](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=494491)** > > This is going to be a watershed event in my opinion if the Democrats and Obama get it passed in January. It will slowly strangle the entire US economy like the unions have done for Detroit. Here’s the gist of it There’s no question why the... Regarding Michigan, I am glad to see that my employability has increased in that state. I have concerns over how the matter was passed, and I’m hoping those with a better eye on the news will keep us updated. I understand there may be some issues with how the RTW matter was attached to another bill? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/295 "2012-12-17T13:55:30Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You’ve skipped over the whole point of the EFCA. Why was this change sought? > > It was intended to remedy the fact that an employer has a captive and dependent audience who are subject to intimidation and other forms of coercion. Is opening the field to even more intimidation via a non-secret ballot really the way to remedy that? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Indefinite non-negotiation isn’t acceptable; it’s certainly not negotiating in good faith. Just over half (56%) of unions that win elections ever get a signed contract. This part of the EFCA sought to remedy that tactic. Look at what happened between Blue Man Group and IATSE Local 720, for instance. Where’s the line between “your terms are unacceptable” and “I have already decided that no deal will be made”? Why should the FMCS be legally empowered to force a deal on an unwilling party? I looked into the Blue Man Group situation, it seemed like BMG had a reasonable case that the newly certified union wasn’t representative of their actual crew, though the NLRB ruled against them. But either way, it should again be noted that requiring an employer to negotiate with a solitary, certified union is an unfair advantage unions enjoy. An employer SHOULD be free to refuse to deal with a union, which is in turn then free to strike, quit, or take whatever course they deem prudent. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I’ve tried to explain why it was first proposed. If you don’t think of the items perceived as problems by the authors and supporters of the bill as problems yourself, you may not think the case for support is very strong. I think it’s yet another salvo in a battle of regulation vs. counter-regulation to try and tip the balance of power one way or the other. As stated, I am in favor of getting the government out of the labor business. EFCA was counter to that goal, so I am glad it did not pass. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > It won’t hinder you from getting a job; it might hinder you from getting a particular (i.e. union contracted) job. But if the employer wants to only use union employees, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do so? > > If you’re for the free market, you should be against this bill, as it restricts an employer’s right to choose to only hire union employees. > > If you’re truly for a free market, you should be able to admit that this bill in Michigan is about applying the force of law to shrink and ultimately eradicate unions, both public and private. Mediation (what the EFCA sought) is for finding middle, equitable ground; this bill is about compulsion and excision. Again, the issue is that such union security agreements are **not** freely negotiated, due to this country’s labor law. Once that law is reformed, I would gladly support the repeal of RTW laws. Better still, an omnibus federal labor reform law that would preempt state law. I have expressed very tepid, limited support for RTW in this thread, they are a clumsy and imperfect solution to a thorny problem. The middle, equitable ground only exists in a free market. > [@Ruken](#): > > There are plenty of posters on this board who think it is only just to be able to know which of your coworkers should be intimidated so that they can be “held accountable”. And the companies do it too, so it’s ok. Rather than address their poor behavior, we’ll enable ours, because it’s the only way. There are some lengthy discussions that have already occurred. I only had time to read the first thread, but the remarks by **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup** about needing to know who management “got to” are fairly chilling. It speaks to a tendency by pro-union folks to view the matter as strictly union vs. employer. Lost in the shuffle are the non-union workers. Some might not want to believe it, but there are many legitimate, compelling reasons that could lead one to refrain from joining a union, and “management got to them” isn’t one of them. My industry, financial services, is not unionized to any degree, but even if it were, I would refrain from joining. This is because I wish to negotiate on my own behalf, and I reject the union view of seniority as the arbiter of employee worth, and the desire to treat all employees as being of equal worth. Frankly, any employee who is better than average might well be better off on their own. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/296 "2012-12-17T16:55:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > For the purposes of this post, I’m assuming you meant “overt”, because the post seems to make more sense that way. Correct me if I’m wrong… Just so. > [@](#): > > …Do you know how many minimum-wage violations it takes to put an employer in prison? [Two.](http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm) That cite also goes over the record keeping requirements that make such conduct difficult to conceal… And just for the record, so we have a number, how many employers have gone to jail for such violations? Are there any examples to offer of employers who got away with it? > [@](#): > > …Also, violators are [liable](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216)to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. As well as employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Plus attorney’s fees… And these protections came about as a result of the humanity and egalitarianism of employers? Or did they come about due to the progressive power of labor? And if that power is neutalized, they will remain? Because of the ethical and moral restraint so commonly exhibited by employers? Well, was it John D. Rockefeller who first proposed these restrictions, or Jay Gould? > [@](#): > > …Thirdly, such violations as do occur are [prosecuted.](http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/human-resources/employers-paying-penalty-wage-and-hour-violations) Still and all, here’s another role for unions other than trying to drive up wages with coercion: acting as a watchdog group and providing legal support when such claims do arise… I have no objection to such a role for unions. Since you don’t either, why bring it up? > [@](#): > > …You mock the free market as some sort of religious item of faith, but it’s been the most successful engine for human comfort and dignity in human history. It destroys aristocracy and privilege, because it’s a true meritocracy. Opposition to a free market is opposition to freedom itself, because a free market is nothing more than free exchanges… One of the most salient characteristics of a religious faith is belief in something that cannot be proven to exist. Or have ever existed, for that matter. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a “Free Market”. When the _Epic of Gilgamesh_ first became available for purchase on [Euphrates.com](http://Euphrates.com), the powers-that-be were interfering with the market. Because there is money there. _Très duh!_, as they say in France. So how is it, then, that this non-existent force has procured such marvelous benefits for personkind? You sure it wasn’t Jesus? \*Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. \* - John Maynard Keynes ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/297 "2012-12-17T17:05:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > It won’t hinder you from getting _a_ job; it might hinder you from getting _a particular_ (i.e. union contracted) job. But if the employer wants to only use union employees, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do so? Are you talking about an employer who “wants” to because he had a contract with the union, or an employer that wants to work with union members for some genuine reason of his own? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/298 "2012-12-17T17:47:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And just for the record, so we have a number, how many employers have gone to jail for such violations? Are there any examples to offer of employers who got away with it? The cite from my third point included employers who’d been sentenced to prison. I can try and research the total sentenced to prison in 2012, but understand that that’s a pretty tall order. > [@elucidator](#): > > And these protections came about as a result of the humanity and egalitarianism of employers? Or did they come about due to the progressive power of labor? And if that power is neutalized, they will remain? Because of the ethical and moral restraint so commonly exhibited by employers? Well, was it John D. Rockefeller who first proposed these restrictions, or Jay Gould? The minimum wage came about because whites didn’t want to have to compete with cheaper, often unskilled, black or female labor. The best chance for these disadvantaged groups to advance themselves was to work cheaply, thus gaining the skills and experience they presently lacked. Minimum wage ruined that chance, by design. Again, we see a meritocracy toppled by government coercion, to favor the group with the most political power. No matter who wields that power, it is wrong. The federal minimum wage was first enshrined in the NIRA in 1933. After the NIRA was struck down as unconstitutional, it was re-established by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. It was part of Roosevelt’s appeal to his political base, not some high moral triumph. For more on this, consult [Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from Reconstruction to the New Deal by David E. Bernstein.](http://www.amazon.com/Only-Place-Redress-Reconstruction-Constitutional/dp/0822325837) > [@elucidator](#): > > I have no objection to such a role for unions. Since you don’t either, why bring it up? The role advocated for unions by most in this thread is that they should organize all the workers in an industry, and collectively demand higher wages and more benefits, using the threat of a strike as leverage. I reject this role; if a union demands above-market wages, and if their skills are fungible enough to be replaced by workers willing to work at the market wage, then the union **should** fail in its efforts. The only reason they often don’t is due to government intervention (or non-intervention, in the case of intimidation of strikebreakers). Now, this isn’t to say that unions should not exist. They have many legitimate purposes. I’ve pointed out a few in this thread already, but here’s a summation: 1. Acting as a mutual aid society. 2. Acting as a watchdog group over labor law, and providing legal aid. 3. Negotiation of grievances, between employer and worker or worker and worker. 4. Acting to certify workers’ skills, and connect them with employers. I’m sure those of greater imagination could propose many more beneficial roles for unions. > [@elucidator](#): > > One of the most salient characteristics of a religious faith is belief in something that cannot be proven to exist. Or have ever existed, for that matter. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a “Free Market”. When the Epic of Gilgamesh first became available for purchase on [Euphrates.com](http://Euphrates.com), the powers-that-be were interfering with the market. Because there is money there. Très duh!, as they say in France. > > So how is it, then, that this non-existent force has procured such marvelous benefits for personkind? You sure it wasn’t Jesus? “Freedom”, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is a spectrum, a sliding scale. Americans are not _totally_ free, yet I’d say we enjoy freedom nonetheless. Yes, the functioning of the free market has often been hindered by government, in ways both defensible and frankly corrupt. Even so hindered, the pretty-darn-free market has done more concrete good for mankind than any other force in history. America has never practiced legal equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, and such. Despite this, we can stake a claim as one of the freest, most just nations on Earth. Similarly, though the free market has never been totally free, we should strive for it nonetheless, and recognize the good it does for what it is. The perfect is not the enemy of the good. I am quite sure it wasn’t Jesus. \*A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. \* - Milton Friedman ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/299 "2012-12-17T21:19:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The cite from my third point included employers who’d been sentenced to prison. I can try and research the total sentenced to prison in 2012, but understand that that’s a pretty tall order… You needn’t. > [@](#): > > …The minimum wage came about because whites didn’t want to have to compete with cheaper, often unskilled, black or female labor. The best chance for these disadvantaged groups to advance themselves was to work cheaply, thus gaining the skills and experience they presently lacked. Minimum wage ruined that chance, by design. Again, we see a meritocracy toppled by government coercion, to favor the group with the most political power. No matter who wields that power, it is wrong… This might well be an excellent rebuttal to anyone advancing the notion that the labor movement was made up of secular saints and endowed with a progressive attitude fifty years in advance of the nation. Since I am not positing such a notion, I do not see the relevance. But now that you bring it up, who moved quickest when the time came around? Were the factory floors integrated first, or the country clubs? Which political organization first demanded racial equality, the Republicans or the Communists? Who was quickest to advance persons of color to positions of power, the labor unions or the banks? Take your time, no hurry. > [@](#): > > …The federal minimum wage was first enshrined in the NIRA in 1933. After the NIRA was struck down as unconstitutional, it was re-established by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. It was part of Roosevelt’s appeal to his political base, not some high moral triumph… We are already properly abashed, we promise not to posit the notion of the labor movement as made up of the utterly unblemished and sinless. But, then again, so what? > [@](#): > > …The role advocated for unions by most in this thread is that they should organize all the workers in an industry, and collectively demand higher wages and more benefits, using the threat of a strike as leverage… Not necessarily that they should, but that they have every right to do so. > [@](#): > > …I reject this role; if a union demands above-market wages, and if their skills are fungible enough to be replaced by workers willing to work at the market wage, then the union **should** fail in its efforts. The only reason they often don’t is due to government intervention (or non-intervention, in the case of intimidation of strikebreakers)… Above market wages is a term of art that lacks any clear definition. If the labor of the worker produces the product, and the product is sold at a respectable profit, how does that fail the test of “market wages”? If the workers actually owned the business, would they be likely to set themselves wages that would destroy their business? > [@](#): > > …Now, this isn’t to say that unions should not exist. They have many legitimate purposes. I’ve pointed out a few in this thread already, but here’s a summation: > > 1. Acting as a mutual aid society. > 2. Acting as a watchdog group over labor law, and providing legal aid. > 3. Negotiation of grievances, between employer and worker or worker and worker. > 4. Acting to certify workers’ skills, and connect them with employers… This is very generous of you, and dully noted. But by “negotiation of greivances” you seem to mean a respectful approach to one’s betters, a plea rather than a negotiation between equals. They are _equals_, yes? Or do I understand you too well? And how does a negotiation proceed between the powerful and the powerless? Begging is not negotiating, the powerless cannot “negotiate”. What form of power will you permit these workers to obtain and utilize? Moral suasion? They already hear how The Boss says rich guys have a tough time getting into Heaven. I don’t really see that has affected their attitudes all that much. Hardly at all, to be frank. > [@](#): > > …I’m sure those of greater imagination could propose many more beneficial roles for unions… We can only hope. We do get to hope, right? Or is that too coercive? > [@](#): > > …“Freedom”, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is a spectrum, a sliding scale. Americans are not _totally_ free, yet I’d say we enjoy freedom nonetheless. Yes, the functioning of the free market has often been hindered by government, in ways both defensible and frankly corrupt. Even so hindered, the pretty-darn-free market has done more concrete good for mankind than any other force in history… You share a quality with Marxists, but in the equal but opposite way. They can’t prove any of their dogma, and neither can you. And you are both equally welcome to it. > [@](#): > > …America has never practiced legal equality for all citizens, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, and such. Despite this, we can stake a claim as one of the freest, most just nations on Earth. Similarly, though the free market has never been totally free, we should strive for it nonetheless, and recognize the good it does for what it is. The perfect is not the enemy of the good. … Yes, we have done well. No, we are not nearly finished. Being the cleanest pig in a pig pen is not much to be proud of. > [@](#): > > …\*A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. \* - Milton Friedman Mr. Friedman has enough detractors and critics in the abstract field of economics, his reputation as a visionary seer has suffered any number of blows from facts. Far be it from me to pile on. Well, not that far, but far enough. And fair warning: first mention of the “Austrian school” or “supply side economics”, and I’ll sic the dog on you. If he isn’t too drunk. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673/300 "2012-12-18T05:00:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This might well be an excellent rebuttal to anyone advancing the notion that the labor movement was made up of secular saints and endowed with a progressive attitude fifty years in advance of the nation. Since I am not positing such a notion, I do not see the relevance. The relevance is this: economic injustice accompanies and reinforces political injustice. When prosperity is determined not by merit, but by political connections, the result is the economic marginalization of the least connected members of society. > [@elucidator](#): > > But now that you bring it up, who moved quickest when the time came around? Were the factory floors integrated first, or the country clubs? Which political organization first demanded racial equality, the Republicans or the Communists? Who was quickest to advance persons of color to positions of power, the labor unions or the banks? Take your time, no hurry. It seems that you have excused the economic marginalization of minorities under the organized labor movement, as being simply the attitudes of the time (a position I can only partly accept, see previous paragraph). But you then attack such conservative bastions as banks and country clubs, for being slow to advance such minorities to positions of power. Is it not apparent that the one contributes to the other? Labor law keeps certain minorities under-skilled and poor, thus unappealing to such high-skilled industries as banking, and such wealth-dependent establishments as country clubs. It is only logical that minorities operating at such disadvantages would have to pass through the “middle” (skilled labor), before arriving at the “top” (banks and country clubs). The Communist desire for racial and gender equality was commendable, but is overshadowed by the horrific suffering the rest of their platform caused when put into effect. Certainly, racial minorities were better off under American capitalism of any political stripe than under Communism, as all humans are. > [@elucidator](#): > > We are already properly abashed, we promise not to posit the notion of the labor movement as made up of the utterly unblemished and sinless. But, then again, so what? Just establishing context for the labor struggles of the period. No argument made, just background. > [@elucidator](#): > > Not necessarily that they should, but that they have every right to do so. As do I. And, in fact, they do. > [@elucidator](#): > > Above market wages is a term of art that lacks any clear definition. If the labor of the worker produces the product, and the product is sold at a respectable profit, how does that fail the test of “market wages”? If the workers actually owned the business, would they be likely to set themselves wages that would destroy their business? “Market price” seems to have a clear definition… Merriam-Webster: a price actually given in current market dealings. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com):the price at which a commodity, security, or service is selling in the open market. Wikipedia: the economic price for which a good or service is offered in the marketplace. Instead of “market wage”, would you accept “prevailing wage”? The test of market wages is the same test as any market price: are both parties willing to make the exchange? I may value my Fender Jaguar Bass at $2,000 because I’m very fond of it, but it’s not a market price until someone’s willing to pay it. Similarly, I and my union brothers are free to quote a price for our labor, but if our employer would rather negotiate for a lower price, or just restaff with new employees at the prevailing wage, then that is only fair and just. As to the point about setting wages that destroy the business, you may wish to consider the case of the UAW. Why is it that, under the same market conditions, the only automakers driven to bankruptcy were two of three that used union labor? Which, credit where it’s due, stepped up and made [concessions](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-05-29-gm-uaw_N.htm) to keep GM and Chrysler viable. > [@elucidator](#): > > This is very generous of you, and dully noted. But by “negotiation of greivances” you seem to mean a respectful approach to one’s betters, a plea rather than a negotiation between equals. They are equals, yes? Or do I understand you too well? > > And how does a negotiation proceed between the powerful and the powerless? Begging is not negotiating, the powerless cannot “negotiate”. What form of power will you permit these workers to obtain and utilize? Moral suasion? They already hear how The Boss says rich guys have a tough time getting into Heaven. I don’t really see that has affected their attitudes all that much. Hardly at all, to be frank. Equal before the law, yes. Why is it that you assume workers to be powerless beggars? There’s a market for employers as well as employees, after all. Successful businesses compete for quality employees. Mistreated and undervalued employees, failing other remedies, can simply leave for other opportunities. This is, of course, anecdotal, but I got to see the process first-hand in my retail job of several years. District-level managerial incompetence and non-competitive pay and benefits drove the best store-level managers to other companies. The store-level management was replaced about once per year, each time less skilled and less experienced. The better salespeople (on commission) left as well, as sales were tumbling under the inept new regime. Finally, a store open since 1966 shut its doors for good. Who was powerless here? > [@elucidator](#): > > We can only hope. We do get to hope, right? Or is that too coercive? Can we keep this civil, please? > [@elucidator](#): > > You share a quality with Marxists, but in the equal but opposite way. They can’t prove any of their dogma, and neither can you. And you are both equally welcome to it. The state of human misery in Marxist nations, compared to free-market capitalist ones, makes a rather convincing case. > [@elucidator](#): > > Yes, we have done well. No, we are not nearly finished. Being the cleanest pig in a pig pen is not much to be proud of. I’d have to disagree. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. To deny the human comfort and dignity of Western nations, for being imperfect, is wrong. There is a clear difference between our values and practices and those of the rest of the world, and this difference should be celebrated, as it has brought forth the finest conditions for humanity to live in yet achieved. Part and parcel of this is economic freedom. > [@elucidator](#): > > Mr. Friedman has enough detractors and critics in the abstract field of economics, his reputation as a visionary seer has suffered any number of blows from facts. Far be it from me to pile on. Well, not that far, but far enough. And fair warning: first mention of the “Austrian school” or “supply side economics”, and I’ll sic the dog on you. If he isn’t too drunk. All economists have detractors and critics; Keynes is certainly no exception. My user name comes from a seminal work of the Austrian school, by Ludwig von Mises, so you can probably guess my opinion of the Austrian school. Supply-side economics is a distinct, unrelated school, which I don’t place much stock in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-contemplates-becoming-right-to-work/643673.md?page=16)