No, wait. That was Karl Marx.1
Look, there is nothing inherently wrong with unions -- the right to associate and all. The problem with unions is the advantage that government provides them. Strip the laws favoring unions and they would have to accept a wage based on their individual marginal value product, just like everyone else.
But unions do not exist to earn what they produce. No, unions exist to gain an advantage. Not over the employee, but over the consumer. Union rhetoric about the endless battle between the two classes -- capitalist and worker -- is pure nonsense. Sure, there is a class war. But it is a war between the payers and the recipients of government benefits. And unions are recipients, they are not payers.
Keep in mind that when Matt speaks of the right to organize, he means the right to force unions on private citizens qua entrepreneurs. Matt has created a right where none exists. He desires the ability to have government force private citizens to act in a manner that benefits Matt and his cronies, and no one else.
Lets be honest: Anyone can join a union in the United States. Just call yourself a union and there you have it. Matt and his cronies want to force the union on the private citizen, property rights be damned. And if they have to crack a few skulls in the process ... well, as Lenin said, "You can't make an omelet with out breaking eggs."
Nice Matt. Real nice.2
Matt has left a new comment on your post "One man's union is another man's ...":
As a union member I must let my voice be heard and defend the right of workers everywhere to organize. While it is apparent that the top level leaders of my union have very socialistic goals, they do not, nor should they, persuade me from being "anti-union" in light of the necessary functions that my union provides and for which it was created,i.e.; wage and benefit negotiation and conflict resolution (grievance procedures).
I have always said and always will say that in an ideal society if all employers, particularly government employers, treated employees with due process and fair compensation there would have never been any need for unions to exist.
There are many companies and municipalities where unions do not exist, and the workers are content with the environment and compensation. There are two reasons why I believe this is the case, 1) the employer simply has good character and 2) the employer is opposed to unions so he is always keeping himself "in check" and making sure he toes the line or else his workers may organize.
Note:
[1]You can read the rest of the Manifesto of the Communist Party over at Marxists.org -- one of my favorite sites. In fact, I just bought their two DVD set, which includes all the content on their website. Some very interesting reading, to say the least.
[2]Oddly enough, Matt appears to have been a Ron Paul supporter. He must have missed the freedom part of the Paul platform.
6 comments:
Thanks for the info. When I attended Ron Paul meet-ups I had no idea there were such "eclectic" views espoused.
Of course, I support Ron Paul. I was just amazed that Matt -- someone who supported Paul -- would take such an anti-liberty stance.
Jim are you saying you don't support the freedom of workers to organize themselves?
Matt didn't espouse any government interference in labor organization but you still criticized him. He only said that workers should be allowed to organize if they wish. He is espousing a lack of government intrusion in regulating labor organizations.
So companies should have their economic freedoms but not workers.
1:11 --
Of course Matt espouses government intervention.
Look, anyone can organize. Just agree with your coworkers to form an organization that negotiates salaries and benfits. You have the right to do that. But that isn't the issue with Matt and the unionists.
Matt wants the employer to be forced to recognize your group as the only bargaining unit at the company.
Consider this: Join with your coworkers and go to your manager and say, "We want 10% increases or we quit." You'll be shown the door once that sentence is finished.
You still have your right to your organization, but not on the companies property.
Workers have the right to organize. They have the right to present their case to their employer. And the employer has the right to fire them on the spot.
That, my friends, is freedom. Matt does not advocate liberty -- no government intrusions. Trust me.
You say Matt espouses government intervention but Matt did not say it. You "read his mind" to enforce your own belief.
If all employees of a company organize and press demands the company would be hard-pressed to fire them all. They could try but that would be counter to their desire to make money. It is hard to make money with no employees.
Of course they could slowly replace everyone but that also costs money.
So they have to either negotiate a reasonable compromise or they face going out of business.
That is the basis of unionism.
11:50 --
Then go ahead organize. Nothing is stopping you.
But organizing is NOT the basis of unions. And you know better.
Post a Comment