Eric Baldwin is an electrical engineering senior and Mustang Daily libertarian columnist.
Whatever unions may be or do, they are a fine topic for bitter arguments. If you want to divide a family, a region or an entire nation, bring up labor unions.
Unions are based on beliefs about the workings of the world that cut broad and deep. To be neutral on the topic of unions, is to be neutral on many of the greatest questions of our age: What are human rights? What is ownership? What is the proper relationship between human beings?
Historically, unions organized workers to act as a unit to pursue two primary objectives: to collectively negotiate with employers and to pursue orchestrated political activism internally as well as externally — usually of a socialist bent.
The central divisive idea behind the trade union is the idea of worker exploitation.
So how are workers exploited? History has its share of abuses, ranging from cheating the illiterate to gross safety violations to the use of debt to guarantee a captivated workforce. But now that laws have been enacted (in many cases due to unions) to address most such problems, and any holes or omissions can be easily rectified.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has striven tirelessly to ensure that not even the simplest task can be done without onerous and debilitating restrictions. The use of strikes and other such tools of organized labor are no longer needed to protect most workers from such exploitation.
Unions identify something else as exploitation as well — a larger and far more basic idea than disregard or deception. The idea that the free market wage is itself exploitative, the belief that an informed and consensual contract between employer and employee still contains an element of deprivation. In this belief the company holds some kind of leverage — perhaps due to its size — that allows it to impose an unjust agreement upon a desperate worker.
This belief has dire consequences for the free market.
First, it assumes that employers have a monopolistic control over the availability of job openings.
But employers are not a distant, distinct and unified entity. They are normal people like everyone else, competing against and doing business with each other, trying to make a living.
Second, it assumes that the purpose of a job is to provide the employee with livelihood. On the contrary, voluntary employment creates a mutual increase in wealth between the employer and the employee by means of mutual exchange. To force the person-who-is-the-employer to submit to a decrease in wealth on the employee’s behalf is just as much theft as the other way around. It is the responsibility of the individual to make a living, not of the employer to provide it.
Third, it assumes that the worker is a weak, ignorant and helpless entity. While this is true in some measure for all of us, the advent of mass transit and instant communication provide everyone access to more opportunities (perhaps even to found your very own evil soulless corporate empire) than have ever before existed in human history.
Unions counter this perceived exploitation by means of coercion. Some coercion is direct, such as suspending or shutting down companies by withholding labor. And some is indirect, such as creating and supporting legislation that forces companies to change their behavior. But both uses are based on a very disturbing assumption about the nature of human society — that coercion is a healthy element of a properly-functioning world.
This may come as a surprising take on the situation, but look at the problem closely; unions do not exist to promote a more consensual world, they exist to exert force. Furthermore, they exist under the assumption that business is and will always be an evil coercive entity which must be countered by the eternal and eternally good coercion of unified labor. The idea of a more cooperative world where all parties voluntarily associate for mutual benefit is not simply alien; it is not worth pursuing.
To accept the view that coercion is normal is to raise some very serious questions about the nature of humanity.
First, it is based on the assumption that the world is necessarily dichotomized into two static and distinct groups — the powerful few and the disenfranchised many. These groups are necessarily antagonistic and possess a single vehicle of interaction — exploitation. For example, if the poor do not rob the rich, the rich will rob the poor. The only alternative to bad coercion is good coercion.
While this view has some observational support (see: all history ever), it is unwise to assume that something is means that it must be. If two parties are locked in war, one side or the other must eventually conquer — but not-war is a third possibility.
Social and wealth classes are more fluid than ever before in history. More education is available for a lower cost than ever before in history. Methods of resolving conflict are more accessible and more transparent than ever before. Science and philosophy present the underlying unity of humanity with greater clarity than ever before. If the American experiment has quested for any single truth, it is that a world can exist where all persons are equal beings that can all live under the same principles. Yet, the union is based on the belief that the rich and the poor are fundamentally divergent entities who must be subjected to separate moral codes and between whom there can be no reconciliation, only strife.
Second, it assumes that individual workers themselves are subject to the control and the censure of the group. If unions resent and oppose employers, they equally oppose non-union employees — especially ones that work when the union is striking.
In many places unions are able to force companies to hire only unionized labor, rendering free workers ineligible for employment (the situation is muddled by the fact that non-unionized employees often benefit from the collective bargaining of unions, but you can’t fix a vase by smashing it twice). Internally, members are often pressured to support the many official political positions of the union and ostracized for refusing.
Third, it both feeds upon and nourishes the perception that the individual worker is necessarily a weak and defenseless being. When unions speak of empowerment it almost always refers to workers in the aggregate. The fundamental idea of a union is that individual workers can best find safety under the protection of a large and militant organization. But are we willing to accept the idea that the individual is properly a dependent creature and that true progress lies not in increased freedom but in a more comfortable dependency.
Unions have practical as well as philosophical consequences.
By dictating the terms of employment, unions create a disconnect between compensation and accountability. Employers are forced to pay employees for “working” the union’s rules, not necessarily for doing a good job.
By unionizing large segments of industries, unions force workers to participate in political agendas that they may not agree with; unions were developed for political as well as labor objectives, and their political activity often far exceeds the issues of employment — it is very difficult to discover any political issue whatsoever on which the California Teachers’ Association does not have a position.
By demonizing employers in principle, unions perpetuate a negative view of the engines of wealth. By perpetuating a perception of victimhood and vulnerability, unions teach people to view themselves as powerless and ineffectual individuals, destined to be integrated into one of two giant machines.
labor union: n. An organization that controls a particular labor sector, often through militant means, in order to allow the incompetent and/or lazy to earn obscene wages for performing minimal work. Organizations such as these also have the effect of increasing the cost of the products/services of the industries they control, while simultaneously decreasing the quality of those products/services. By requiring raises and promotions to be based on rules that have little bearing on employee performance, these organizations eliminate opportunities for skilled and dedicated individuals who desire to excel in union controlled industries.
that’s a funny definition. My Websters dictionary defines a Labor Union as “an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members’ interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions.” Where did you get your definition from?
Mostly my belief in reality over theory.
I’ll be the first to admit that labor unions were, at one time, a great idea in theory. However, history has shown that labor unions have been a disaster. Also, labor unions are completely unnecessary in today’s modernized western nations.
Then there’s the bit about my experience as an Industrial Engineer, which has shown me the harm labor unions often cause.
Labor unions must be rejected on all grounds- in practice and in theory. How can one possibly say that when wage rates are kept artificially high and not representative of worker productivity, that this is in the best interest of the working class. The only thing labor unions do is increase the benefits for the people able to attain work and keep others out of work. This effect necessarily creates unemployment. Secondly, if history tells us anything at all, it shows a growing independence of the working class from the “monopoly of the employers” since the invention of the automobile, aviation, and the internet. The ability to seek new employers that will better satisfy your needs is infinitely better than any time in history. Left wing liberals despise the size of corporations and claim they exploit the working class, but they do not realize that increases in wages, pensions, healthcare benefits can only be covered by the large corporations. The small companies can not afford the union increases, therefore they either cut workers, or drive themselves into bankruptcy. Furthermore, how can you say that labor unions can help solve the problem of being a labor surplus? Union bargaining necessarily keeps others out of work. At market clearing price for wages, everyone who wishes to work, can work. This is not true with the union wages. M G, stating that employers have a monopoly over job openings is equivalent to saying that all colleges have a monopoly on granting degrees. However, you failed to recognize that there is an infinite amount of opportunities to create your own employment, especially with the modern internet market contrary to a degree. Lastly, M G, you claim that the employers goal is to maximize profits. This is absolutely true, and if they did not seek to maximize them, even more of the working class would be unemployed, let alone more union members. Your arguments can not refute economics. They are muddled, at best.
In theory there is an infinite amount of job opportunity out there. In practice, not so much. If I wanted to I could start a new internet business tomorrow and throw myself wholly into it. I happen to have the savings, education and intelligence to make that happen (not to say you need all three, but I’m in good shape). But not everyone has that opportunity, especially in the savings department. Somebody who lives paycheck to paycheck simply cannot take such risks, ESPECIALLY if they are supporting a family with their earnings. So yes, in theory job opportunities are infinite. In practice, no.
I’ve worked for a number of small businesses and there have never been Unions involved in any of them. I don’t think most small businesses have to deal with worker unionization because the person who makes the decision to fire people knows, _personally_ the people he is going to fire or deny raises or give raises or hire. Small business owners typically suffer more when their business suffers than large business owners, which puts them more in tune with their employees. I think that personal connection creates more worker trust in their employer than larger organizations where the decision makers don’t know most of their employees on any level. Unions can replace this personal connection in a situation where the person making decisions does not have any stake in individual workers.
And your argument that increased profits leads to more employment is flawed. It all depends on where those profits are used. If the profits are used entirely to invest in and grow the business then they absolutely have the chance to create more jobs. If those profits are used to reward stockholders, CEOs and other business owners with raw cash, then nobody new is hired. I would argue that Revenue is more important for growing a business, since higher revenue typically implies more product sold. More product sold means more product manufactured, which requires more employees to create the product.
I find it interesting that you concede that Unions are the source of many worker protection laws, then immediately decry them as useless. The evidence seems to suggest that workplace conditions have historically been such that influence of workers unions were necessary. I don’t see any convincing argument that conditions may not need improvement in the future.
And I honestly do not understand your point about employers not having a monopoly over job openings. Employers, as a group, by necessity have a monopoly over job openings. Since any person offering employment is by definition an employer and those not offering employer are not employers, all employers have a monopoly over job openings. It is true that most employers are not colluding with each other to keep the worker down, but there you go.
You also seem to gloss over the fact that workers are generally at a disadvantage because, in general, there is a surplus of labor, especially in unskilled or quickly trained fields. Unions provide a measure of protection against an employer action in a naively rational manner.
What does the employer want? To maximize profits. How does he do that? By cutting costs, and labor is a cost. Unions can help protect against an employer who seeks to use labor surpluses to take advantage of the relatively powerless worker.
M G,
My point about there being an infinite amount of opportunities on the web was not only self employment, but mostly the ability to search nationwide in minutes for a job. At no time in the history of mankind has the worker had so much freedom. If anything, the unions create much less freedom because they force their members to work for a minimum amount. For example, say you have an evil exploitative capitalist employer who is only driven by the profit motive. Now he is faced with a decision to hire another worker, but can only afford to expend $15/ hour. If the union wage rate is higher than $15/hour, then every penny over that amount is a loss to him. Who is to stop him from not hiring another worker altogether? This means one more union employee would be unemployed, but this would never happen on the free market because the worker would have agreed upon the $15/hour over being unemployed. Secondly, my argument about profits is not flawed. It doesn’t matter how the CEO chooses to spend the money because if he truly is wasting the money by rewarding the rightful owners of the company, then he will suffer losses. Lastly, it should be pointed out that profit is the reward to the entrepreneur for deferring consumption in the present to consumption in the future (i.e. investment), and their workers’ wages are guaranteed payment ex ante- before the entrepreneur knows whether his investment will result in a profit or loss. Therefore, any argument that states that the CEO is spending exploited excess profits from the workers is false. The profit is not excess- it is reward for making good value judgments of the consumers demands in the present. What do say about CEO’s making losses? Is that the workers exploiting the entrepreneur? Surely, if they worked for lower wages they would not have caused these losses, according to your logic. The whole point I am trying to make is that profits have nothing to do with how much is “left over” after paying the workers- rather, it is reward for serving the most urgent wants of the consumers with uncertain value judgments on the part of the consumers.
In your example of the $15/hour position, what’s to stop the employer from hiring a non-union employee? And what’s to stop an independent agent from negotiating a higher salary?
And I think you’re overestimating most peoples ability to uproot themselves for employment. I may be able to find a job in Maryland but I may not have the financial resources to move myself out there, and an employer is not likely to pay relocation costs for an employee who is not highly skilled and desired.
I made no claim that profit is exploiting the worker or that business owners are not entitled to the profits of their business. My point was that profits ON THEIR OWN are a poor method of producing or predicting increased employment. If I have a business making widgets and I have enough employees to meet demand and make a sizable profit, I have no incentive to hire more employees because to do so would only serve to decrease my profit.