Mussolini is dead, but his fascist idea lives — the idea that the individual is the creature of the state, that he exists for the state, that he has no rights except what the state gives him and can take away. FULL ARTICLE by Cecil B DeMille
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11343/the-right-to-work/
The Right to Work
Previous post: What’s Wrong with the Utility Function?
Next post: Thinking Resolutions Through
{ 18 comments }
Huh? I’m confused. What was the author’s point? At first it sounds like the tired communist “right to work” which essentially means that everyone has to hire anyone who comes in their door asking for a job, but then it sounds like something about “The Government should stop giving unions special favors.”
The second point is agreeable but the first one is most certainly not. I can’t tell which one the author was going for, the article is a jumbled mess of words.
Maybe it requires some background to understand this piece. He was writing at a time when the unions threatened to destroy the postwar recovery. There was a brewing calamity. This famed director came to the defense of individuals as against the coercion of labor unions. His defense isn’t perfect but neither were the laws at the time: the negative effects of New Deal era pro-union legislation were mitigated by more legislation granting rights to management and owners too. A free market was not even considered. DeMille’s piece, then, is pretty good. What he defends is the right of an individual to break a strike, to work if he wants to. It has nothing whatever to do with the “communist” notion of a human right to pay.
Thanks Mr. Tucker, that certainly made it easier to understand, though I still feel a little uncomfortable with the presentation of the point as the “right to work.”
The “right to work” is one form of the more general right to freedom of association — the right to engage in mutually-voluntary employment when the employer and employee agree to terms. The idea is that third parties do not have the right to prevent or interfere in the employer-employee relationship.
The phrase arises as a response to (and rejection of) the primary method by which labor unions gain their power — preventing everyone from accepting an offer of employment from willing employers.
Labor unions assert the unique right to tell people that they do not have the right to work for an employer. They do this so they can force the employer to either agree to pay the union more money or go out of business. It is a simple barrier to entry mechanism to bar all would-be employees from entering the labor market.
I too was confused, but the clarifications have helped, and I thank the commentors.
But I think an article such as this should have some footnotes or comments to help the readers understand the authors intent. I believe that the “right to work” is being perverted today.
Question: if a company signs an agreement with a union, stating that the company will not hire non-members for a given class of jobs, and that during a strike, the company will not use the labour of members, and then when a strike does occur, some union members prefer to work, should they have the right?
It’s good to know I’m not alone on the confusion. Perhaps the article could have benefited from a supplied forward?
ABR, that sounds more like an issue of breach of contract than a violation of property rights.
All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.
@Seattle & @Ray
There are a number of states that have laws against closed union shops. They are known as “right to work laws”.
Rothbard opposed right to work laws on the grounds that a company may decide it is to their advantage to accept a closed shop in return for some other concession when bargaining with a union.
Might it be made even more clear if a distinction was drawn between “work” and “employment?” The former is done by the employee whereas the latter is given by the employer.
No one has the right to prevent someone from working; however, no one has the right to force someone to offer employment.
Sadly there is no one in Hollywood today who would go in front of Congress today and make this speech.
ABR asks…
Question: if a company signs an agreement with a union, stating that the company will not hire non-members for a given class of jobs, and that during a strike, the company will not use the labour of members, and then when a strike does occur, some union members prefer to work, should they have the right?
Not being a fan of the union mentality, I can see
no business advantage to voluntarily signing such an agreement with a union. Are there any advantages that I’m not seeing? Thanks.
In regard to Leon’s question: I think the circumstances would have to be exceptional for a company to sign such an agreement voluntarily.
The union would have to be very loyal. General unemployment would have to be minute. The skills of the members would have to be very specialised. The business would have to be very profitable.
Under those conditions, a company might (mistakenly, in the long run) sign such a deal in order, for example, to avoid an imminent strike. As David Bratton mentioned earlier, alluding to Rothbard, the company might wish to extract some concession.
Ordinarily, though, a company would ignore a union altogether. Without the power of the State, I suspect most unions would disintegrate.
“Ordinarily, though, a company would ignore a union altogether. Without the power of the State, I suspect most unions would disintegrate.”
Ah, but, so would just about all companies (maybe not ones like Sanitarium with its connection to the sustaining ethos of a religious group).
The “right to work” laws were a reaction against the power of unions to intimidate employers and employees through the threat of violence. The wording was a PR stunt to appeal to public opinion, which had some sympathy for union picket-lines and other coercive practices.
The expression “right to work” has been twisted today to imply an obligation by an employer to hire. The expression “free to work” might have been better, but then that could be misread as “available to work”.
What I liked about the article were the ringing declarations in defense of freedom. Sadly, the author’s ideals seem to belong to a bygone era (or the Mises site):
“The touchstone for any law is the question: How does individual freedom fare?”
These days it is rare to hear that the purpose of a proposed law is to protect individual freedom. We are far more likely to be told that its purpose is to improve security.
And how often these days does a Supreme Court judge declaim a right “to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts”? We are more likely to read of the need to get planning permission or pass board exams.
>Rothbard opposed right to work laws on the grounds that a company may decide it is to their advantage to accept a closed shop in return for some other concession when bargaining with a union.
Someone who wishes to discuss labor issues should learn the difference between a union shop and a closed shop.
Closed shop – person must be a union member before getting the job.
Union shop – person must join the union after getting the job.
Closed shops are illegal. Union shops are legal.
@ABR
I believe most of the coal companies in Appalachia have agreed to union only shops. It’s a matter of numbers. If the union is strong enough to get nearly every available worker to join it, then the company has little to lose by agreeing not to employ non-union workers. Also, since the company can be reasonably certain all of their competitors will have to do the same, there is the benefit of raising the bar against small operators.
I read this thinking, “this would abolish trade licensure and minimum/maximum wages if the logic were consistently followed.”
Bravo, Mr. DeMille. Encore!
I doubt very much that the Screen Actor’s Guild and the rest of the Hollywood constellation of unions would like it if “one of their own” said this today.
Comments on this entry are closed.