“Nobody?”
What about “…the use of force “to achieve a legitimate labor objective” cannot be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act?”
And while knife attacks might indeed be rare, driving a car past a picket line and getting it dented by the striking workers is extremely common.
No, but I’ll bet you’re all for regulating them and limiting their power, right? No one here is saying that unions should be abolished. We’re saying that in some places, they have been granted too much power and need to be curtailed.
Public unions have tremendous political clout, both because they are the biggest source of funds for Democratic politicians, and because they are now large enough that they constitute a large voting bloc and can force very visible, very public ‘crises’ as a means to bending politicians to their will.
Let me tell you exactly what I believe the proper role of unions should be:
First, everyone absolutely has the power to bargain collectively. If you can convince your co-workers to join in lockstep with you and threaten the employer with a labor walk-off, go for it. On the other hand, the employer has every right to tell you to get lost and hire replacements. In this situation, the power of the union is rooted in the collective value of the labor and training of the workforce. The employer may fire you and hire new workers, but he’s going to lose all the skills and local knowledge his workforce has developed, and he’s going to suffer downtime while a new workforce is hired and trained.
In ‘Right to work’ states (and in my province) this is how private sector unions generally work. Because the power of the union derived from the collective value of the workforce, the union gains power and stature by improving the quality of work, training workers, etc.
My brother belongs to such a union, and employers voluntarily seek them out because they can put a lot of workers on a job site very quickly, and they handle the safety training, drug testing, and a lot of the HR hassle. The union also takes on the unpleasant task of disciplining workers who are constantly late, or lazy, or operating in an unsafe manner.
As a result, the union workers are generally perceived to be a more expensive but much higher-quality option over hiring non-union workers. The more productive those union workers are, the more value they have to the employer, and the more power the union has to request better pay, benefits, and working conditions.
This works because the incentives of the union leaders, the workers, and management are all aligned. They’re aligned because the system is voluntary. Yes, the employer still faces a risk that all his employees could walk off the job if he’s being unreasonable, but then the union faces the risk that if they demand too much, the employer will simply start hiring non-union employees. Or in extreme cases, the employer might go out of business and put all of them out of work. Or maybe he’ll just lose market share and have to downsize and layoff workers, and none of the parties in question want that. So everyone’s reasonable.
Now, let’s look at public unions. First of all, the government is forced to deal with them, because they’ve been granted a legal monopoly in labor. Second, the government faces no competitive pressures, and the people in charge of negotiating with the unions are not negotiating with their own money - they’re negotiating with taxpayer money. So their incentive to control costs goes way down. Third, the public unions are essentially bribing their employers - being the major source of their political funding, the politicians know that if they fight the union, less money will be available for their next campaign.
The incentives of public unions and the politicians who are supposed to provide oversight of them are completely skewed. If a politician is facing union demands, he or she can do one of two things - agree, in which case hey, you just borrow a little more, or raise taxes a bit. Or, if the union is smart it will generally push mainly for gilded retirement benefits, because politicians love to agree to things that won’t take effect until they’re out of office. But if the politician says no, not only may he or she face a very public battle in which he will be demonized and politically damaged, but if there’s a strike the politician will take the blame from many voters. In addition, the union members themselves are voters, and can vote for another person.
So from the standpoint of union oversight, all the incentives on the politician skew him or her towards just accepting what the union wants, no matter how outrageous it might be - especially if the pain can be diverted a few election cycles into the future or blamed on someone else.
The incentives remain skewed, and the unions grow more and more expensive, until finally the entire system itself starts to creak under their weight and public pressure on the other side outweighs the union’s political clout. By then, much damage has been done. This usually happens when the union workers begin to retire, and the hideously expensive nature of what has been promised to them by feckless politicians becomes a major financial burden on the public.
There should be no public unions. There should be no laws preventing employers from firing union workers, but workers certainly have the right to organize into groups and to wield collective bargaining power.
Close enough.
Yes, there should be regulation. Right now, it’s much too hard to organize a union though. And public employees should have the same rights as any others.
I’m sorry I don’t have time for a more detailed response. Maybe later.
I am saying that if there’s overwhelming evidence that teachers’ unions have a bad effect on public education, then that’s probably why attitudes towards those unions have grown so negative. As to whether there is such evidence, I linked to an article by Joel Klein in the post you quoted from. You’re welcome to read that article and draw your own conclusions.
I’ve been here long enough to know that you are misrepresenting this act and/or ruling to falsely bolster your case.
I’m not complaining. My overall opinion about unions (not workers) changed over the years because I belonged to a union that no longer met MY needs or the needs of my fellow workers, but used our dues to further their chosen political agenda.
About my union experience I said, “It got too big. It became too political. It lost it’s way.” That’s why I am skeptical towards the motives of LARGE unions, especially those unions with national affiliations."
I don’t want you to say anything in particular. Listening to my experiences and attempting to understand how my experience changed my outlook would be generous of you.
My general opinion is that large political unions are not serving the needs of the members. I know this is true.
This is almost laughable. The local union reps/members are often volunteers, as I was. However, the union officials are highly paid and their entire agenda is to keep themselves employed as union officials. They will spend membership dues as they see fit, including making certain they are re-elected.
I found it offensive to pay money out of every paycheck to support an organization that I no longer respected and felt had lost it’s moral compass.
Like I said, too big, too political, and financing “global agendas” with my wages against my will.
From the article’s discussion of the SC case with relevant precedent:
.
The above can’t possibly be true. As in, if it is true my head will explode. Literally. Explode.
And because the above is so blatantly manifestly false (or else head asplody ferreals) I cannot believe anything else contained in the article.
My advice is to go to Home Depot, get a large plastic tarp, and spread it out around you before reading further.
United States v. Enmons, 410 US 396(1973). The Supreme Court, in the throes of love for the union label, said:
I can’t imagine why there’d be backlash against that, but – with apologies for your exploded head – it’s true.
The conduct wasn’t “legal”. It was not against federal law. Just like rape, assault, robbery, and vandalism aren’t.
No, it’s not. They did not say the actions are legal. They said the actions are not extortion.
They could have been prosecuted under other statutes.
ETA This post is in response to Bricker.
Of course. But this was a federal prosecution.
They did say the actions were legal…in the context of a Hobbs Act prosecution.
Well that use of “legal” isn’t one I was familiar with. Now that it’s clarified, the decision seems reasonable.
That is a false statement. GM paid off some of the money early using other taxpayer money. The remaining billions still owed would require a stock price of $53.98 per share to break even. right now the stock is at $21.35 so it will be awhile before we get it back.
You’re right, it IS illegal for businesses…except for power companies, phone companies, cable companies, etc. etc..
Now, of course, phone companies and cable companies are stealing each others’ customers, but that’s very recent…and power companies still have monopolies everywhere.
That’s fair. Your additions to the conversation are welcome.
I know examples of where it is not true.
The bottom line is that the members elect their union leaders.
The members elect their leaders. Do you have a problem with democracy?
People don’t like paying taxes either.
Use of force can be prosecuted under the normal law that govern us all - laws against assault, etc. The Hobbs Act is a different issue. A union (or management) person who commits violence in a labor dispute is subject to prosecution just like anyone else.
Nobody thinks violence is okay.
Only a problem with set-up elections where the same person is elected president for 38 years.
I don’t like my money (union dues or taxes) to be foolishly spent.
Like I said - do you have a problem with democracy? Yes or no?
If you think they elections are somehow corrupt (“set up”) then file a complaint with the Dept. of Labor with your allegations. Someone being elected for 38 years may mean he’s corrupt - but it could mean he’s just really popular with the voters. Is there something wrong with that?
Then complain to your leadership, or support someone else for union office, or run for union office yourself.
Delivery of electrical power is an industry in which capital costs predominate, creating what is called a natural monopoly.
Not really applicable to trade show electrical outlets, is it?