Wasn’t St. Ronnie of California the president of that union?
Yeah, but that was before he [del]became[/del] found Jesus.
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?
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.
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?
Insisting that a prospective employee must at least exist is a reasonable requirement. A valid nuetral justification if ever I’ve heard one.
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.
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.
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. That cite also goes over the record keeping requirements that make such conduct difficult to conceal.
Also, violators are liableto 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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Is opening the field to even more intimidation via a non-secret ballot really the way to remedy that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just so.
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?
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?
I have no objection to such a role for unions. Since you don’t either, why bring it up?
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, 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
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?
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.
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.
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:
- Acting as a mutual aid society.
- Acting as a watchdog group over labor law, and providing legal aid.
- Negotiation of grievances, between employer and worker or worker and worker.
- 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.
“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
You needn’t.
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.
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?
Not necessarily that they should, but that they have every right to do so.
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?
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.
We can only hope. We do get to hope, right? Or is that too coercive?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just establishing context for the labor struggles of the period. No argument made, just background.
As do I. And, in fact, they do.
“Market price” seems to have a clear definition…
Merriam-Webster: a price actually given in current market dealings.
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 to keep GM and Chrysler viable.
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?
Can we keep this civil, please?
The state of human misery in Marxist nations, compared to free-market capitalist ones, makes a rather convincing case.
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.
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.