The Union Conspiracy Against Wal-Mart Workers
Most of the commentary on the ongoing propaganda campaign against Wal-Mart ignores what is probably the most important aspect of it: It is primarily a labor union-inspired campaign against Wal-Mart employees, as well as the company in general. This is the essential truth of all union organizing campaigns. Historically, all of the violence, libel, and intimidation that goes along with "organizing campaigns" has been directed at competing, non-union labor, not management. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (105)
Professor DiLorenzo's essay is a very interesting take on the subject that I have never been exposed to. Here at Shepherd University a couple of months ago the movie about WalMart "The High Cost of Low Prices" was shown more than once. I wanted to see it but didn't. I have avoided shopping at WalMart because of the "they put mom and pop shops out of business" idea. I won't be running of to WalMart just yet, but will be keeping this information in mind.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:23 AM
While I was not aware of the connection between the unions and their desires at Wal Mart, the intervention of the court in this instance is troubling. Who is the court to dictate corporate policy - the court dictates and Wal Mart and consumer pay. All of these attempts to control and thwart markets are very sad.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:32 AM
Coca Cola is another company under attack.
A failing marxist labour union in Columbia has been rallying students around the USA to boycott Coke. It is troubling that students and faculty at Universities are so naive and ignorant.
Socialist slogans of destruction and conflict are easier to repeat and embrace than the themes of Liberalism.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:33 AM
While I liked this article, I doubt that non-libertarians will be persuaded by it. Except for a couple of interesting insights, there was little argument or evidence provided.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:43 AM
Still the facts remain, Wal-Marts is a town killer. Dozens of local Mom & Pop business's in my small town have gone under since the big box store have moved in, Wal-Marts, Lowes, and others.
Whatever happen to Sam Waltons motto, "We buy American"? I see Wally World as a hungry giant, no longer staisfied with a big slice of the pie...they want it all. I stopped shopping Wal-Marts two years ago.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:44 AM
The reason small businesses close when Wal-Mart comes in is that those businesses were not any good in the first place and charged higher prices. If as Wm H suggested you support small business, then go shop there and the business will hopefully survive. But government mandates should never be used to control business. Furthermore, the idea that small business is somehow more generous is flawed to say the least. I can site a small business near my apartment in New Orleans doubling prices during Mardi Gras on beer and cigarettes. Guess what all the corporate chains did with prices during Mardi Gras? Stayed the same. Small business is no champion of the people. Just because they have different sizes doesn't mean that the profit maximizing intent is not the same with Wal-Mart and small business. And on another part involving wages....I have never heard someone say...I work at the mom and pop grocery and get paid $10/hr. Usually these places treat their employees worse than Wal-Mart. But ,you know, if you support lower pay and higher prices....don't shop at Wal-Mart.
Published: January 23, 2006 9:59 AM
For once, I am taking sides with Walmart and agree with DiLorenzo. However, as a former strategist for the Fortune 500, I've observed that Walmart eliminates consumer choice. How? It's not by putting smaller retailers out of business. It's by putting suppliers out of business! If there were previously 10 smaller retailers - then there were likely 10 suppliers. Now there are 3 retailers and one Walmart - this only leaves room for 4 suppliers.
Walmart is an extremely nasty negotiator with suppliers – they’re brutal. As a result, suppliers of products to the retail sector are increasingly forced to become polarized into two groups: 1) dirt-cheap, versus 2) super-premium. The middle-tier, which is very good quality for a moderate price, is literally disappearing from the marketplace.
Published: January 23, 2006 10:13 AM
The roots of the union movement has it's roots in socialism etc. The legislators of Maryland, the most corrupt in all the land I am told, is ignorant of economics and I do believe that this experiment in coersion legislation should be shown for what it is. Unconstitutional
Published: January 23, 2006 10:16 AM
Does Wal Mart have an employee welfare fund? If so, do-gooders who want to pay more for consumer goods should shop at Wal Mart and at the end of the year write the fund a tax deductible check for their savings. This will help the employeed sirecyly and cut the govt's take.
Published: January 23, 2006 10:27 AM
Good essay and enjoyed the comments.
Our city council recently turned down a Wal-Mart appplication. They were concerned about the Mom and Pop businesses and were a left-leaning council. They are gone now, thank goodness.
It seems whatever argument is presented drom the left they forget about who they are hurting.
When they turned down Walmart's application many poor people were left having to shop at expensive Mom and Pop shops. Wal-mart is a pretty nasty competitor at times but only unfair practices should be dealt with when it comes to competitiveness and I believe the attack from Unions unfair.
Published: January 23, 2006 10:34 AM
Interesting article. However, I somehow doubt
that unionized stores are, by nature, dirtier
and less user-friendly than non-unionized stores. Also, why does the author automatically assume that the quality of products is superior in non-unionized markets. What's the rational?
I do agree that the state of Maryland should
not have intervened and required Wal-Mart to
provide health insurance for their employees.
My understanding is that Maryland wanted to
recoup the money the state was spending to provide
health care for Wal-Mart workers. There were
other ways to accomplish that. Personally, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't like the way that they treat their employee's. That is a personal decision. I would suggest that each individual review the facts and make their own decision. I think that many people will look at the facts (not the rhetoric) and decide that they also will not patronize Wal-Mart.
Published: January 23, 2006 10:47 AM
While I agree with the sentiments about unions, and the negative effects they produce, could this article be any more of an hyperbole-filled, emotional rant-a-minute?
Come on. If you want to convince someone then do it rationally. This hyperventilating, "I Hate Unions" and "Wal-Mart is God" crap is just silly. Make a point, but don't try to either deify Wal-Mart or villify the unions. Neither one is perfect and this article is just an abysmal example of an economist with too little self control.
Published: January 23, 2006 11:12 AM
Whenever I hear the Wal-Mart haters sing their lofty odes to the Mom & Pop stores, I can't help but be reminded of the romantic propaganda campaign that, earlier in the 20th century, the same type of people disseminated with regard to farmers.
Farming experienced a technological revolution around the same time that consumers were buying personal automobiles -- the 1920s and 1930s. The small tractor was introduced to farming at this same time. As a result, the productivity of the individual farmer increased astronomically.
As a result, agricultural prices dropped, and farms required a far smaller labor force, thus prompting many people to move to cities. (America had a majority rural population until the 1920s). These were normal and beneficial changes, and should have been left alone, but the politicians in Washington and elsewhere used it as an opportunity to increase their control over the economy. They saw it as their sacred mission to "stabilize" farm prices and "save the family farm." Look how well that worked out. We're still paying for a whole slew of absurd ag subsidies, for crying out loud.
The pro-farming propaganda from that era is remarkable. Its effects are with us today, even for people who were born and grew up entirely in the city and never spent more than 48 hours within 10 miles of a real farm.
The Wal-Mart campaign is similar. Just look at the name "Mom & Pop." How could anyone help but be sympathetic? (How much less effective would the anti-Wal-Mart propaganda campaign be if they called them "low-budget Pakistani immigrant-owned stores"?)
The truth is that Wal-Mart has not destroyed a single town. That's a ridiculous concept. If Mom & Pop stores have closed, it is because customers decided that Wal-Mart should exist and so-called Mom & Pops should not.
Published: January 23, 2006 12:39 PM
While this article seems superficially pro-American, it does not take into account the expense of the freedom of the average American. While it is true that a company like Nike gives jobs to perhaps otherwise miscreant foreingers, this resorting to foreign labor a), takes away jobs from Americans, and b), does nothing to insure foreign country x's economic sovereignty. Essentially, foreign worker x becomes subject to the whims of their employer, who can raise and lower wages based on local flux in the American economy without giving thought to the negative effect on the individual foreign worker. This certainly gives the American company an upper hand, but it is achieved by the oppression of foreign workers. Meanwhile, Americans become unemployed, not because the unions want them to (what is the point of a union, if not to insure healthy and competitive work environments?), but because the American companies would rather exploit unwitting and desperate foreign workers. Sounds like a case of "white man's burden" to me. Hiring American workers would further global competition and give more people reason to buy truly American-made goods.
Published: January 23, 2006 12:49 PM
Anti-lib;
You are maybe confusing Tom DiLorenzo with Hannity and the Heritage Foundation - he never said that Wal-Mart was "God" or that unions were the "devil", as you imply - he simply points out both the union tactics (all true) and that many of Wal-Mart's detractors are either union fronts or dupes (also well-documented).
DiLorenzo did not discuss many of the (arguably) wrong things Wal-Mart does (eminent domain takings, using the Federal highway system - yeah, I have seen this complaint - ) because their unionized competitors do those things too. Di Lorenzo is simply pointing out that the unions are not champions of the employee - they are out to put non-union employees out of work, and non-union companies out of business.
Unions already have tremendous legal advantages versus employers under the National Labor Relations Act - when even that isn't enough to unionize a business, you know something is wrong. Kudos to Tom for re-iterating that point.
Published: January 23, 2006 1:21 PM
Tom Austin,
You observe an interesting trend:
“Walmart is an extremely nasty negotiator with suppliers – they’re brutal. As a result, suppliers of products to the retail sector are increasingly forced to become polarized into two groups: 1) dirt-cheap, versus 2) super-premium. The middle-tier, which is very good quality for a moderate price, is literally disappearing from the marketplace.�
With a free and unhampered retail market this statement would translate well to “The consumer is an extremely nasty negotiator with suppliers…�. This is because successful retailers’ behavior reflects their consumers’ preferences. It would appear consumers are leaning towards the dirt cheap and the super-premium product, and they aren’t as willing to pay a moderate price for moderate quality. That’s consumers for you. Go figure.
Published: January 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Robert wrote:
"While it is true that a company like Nike gives jobs to perhaps otherwise miscreant foreingers, this resorting to foreign labor a), takes away jobs from Americans,"
Which is irrelevant, since these jobs would have dissapeared anyway.
"and b), does nothing to insure foreign country x's economic sovereignty. "
A non issue. What the hell is "economic sovereignity"? If you mean a country should be able to have a self-sustaining economy, maybe you shoud return to the basics and learn such concepts as comparative advantage and division of labor.
"Essentially, foreign worker x becomes subject to the whims of their employer, who can raise and lower wages based on local flux in the American economy without giving thought to the negative effect on the individual foreign worker."
American employers also act according to the flux in the American economy, without thought for the supposedly "negative" effects on the individual American worker. Why would foreign employers become reviled villains all of a sudden, for no other sin than to follow economic logic, will remain a mistery until you expain.
"This certainly gives the American company an upper hand, but it is achieved by the oppression of foreign workers."
How does a worker that accepts, voluntarily, a wage for his or her work, become "oppressed"? I believe you just wield that word around because you find it convenient, not because there is any truth behind it.
"Meanwhile, Americans become unemployed, not because the unions want them to (what is the point of a union, if not to insure healthy and competitive work environments?), but because the American companies would rather exploit unwitting and desperate foreign workers."
What IS the point of a union, if less and less workers are willing to join one with each passing year? Unions, by the way, are not to insure healthy and competitive work environments, but to impose hiring quotas upon companies - they are basically guilds, no more, no less.
"Hiring American workers would further global competition and give more people reason to buy truly American-made goods."
Considering the trends, it is clear people have NO OTHER reason to buy American-made goods except price and availability. Consumers have, apparently, little regard for political slogans.
Published: January 23, 2006 2:17 PM
Wal-Mart can't put any store out of business. It is the customers who no longer shop at a particular store that put that store out of business. If Wal-Mart treats its employees so bad then why do so many thousands of Americans work there? Are they too stupid to know that they are being treated badly? It is the people who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart that sound stupid to me.
Published: January 23, 2006 2:42 PM
My congratulations to Mr. DiLorenzo for so convincingly pointing out the obvious: labor unions are an intrusion on the freedom of choice of the prospective employee, and should be regarded as such.
Economic conditions, it seems to me, should support, above all, the attainment of the maximum possible freedom of the individual, whether he be seeking employment or purchase. Anything that encourages monopolistic practices, in this case, that of unions trying to control who can work for a particular company or business through coercion, should be discouraged. If I choose to work for Wal-Mart I should be able to, provided I meet the company's employment requirements, and no intermediary, whether it be a union or otherwise, should intervene. As Bastiat said, that would be just another form of "organized plunder", where the law itself has been perverted to satisfy some special interest group. Why should I be enlisted to fill the coffers of some labor union just so I can work for a living? Better said, what right do they have to force me to do their bidding? The obvious answer is none at all.
Published: January 23, 2006 2:52 PM
Great column!
Thanks for the background on the anti-Walmart campaign. I have lived in a several areas where the 'locals' united against Walmart, with rationale ranging from: Walmart competes unfairly, Walmart will cause job losses (or put several businesses out of business) in the community, Walmart will create an eyesoar on the local landscape. I even lived near one community that fought them tooth and nail (opposing the building of a regional warehouse) because Walmart would pay their employees too much, thus forcing up wages in the city! - But never do I recall anything about Walmart not being union (I've lived in some states where unionism is not a very 'in' idea - Utah being one of them - so I supposed they played it down) - but I am not surprised.
Have you done a similar investigation into the anti-McDonald's movement?
Keep up the good work!
Steve Farrell
NewsMax.com
Published: January 23, 2006 3:07 PM
Laurence Vance, you say "It is the people who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart that sound stupid to me."
So, let me see: You think anyone who doesn't like cheap crap, cruddy stores and junk made in China is stupid? Now there's some value system for you!
Isn't that the point of your much-vaunted take on Libertarianism: Freedom? Are we all not free to patronize any given retailer at any given time? What's so difficult about this equation?
Lots of people go to Wal-Mart to buy stuff. Lots of others tend to like nicer things, most of which aren't found at Wal-Mart. Is it true that you're "stupid" if you don't shop at Nieman-Marcus? What about being "stupid" if you don't shop at (Fill-in-the-blank-here)?
It's pretty apparent you're a Wal-Mart sycophant who can't generate a single, solitary unique thought that doesn't kiss a Walton's pampered, posh ass. That's well and good for you. If you wanna live at Wal-Mart, eat at McDonalds and drive a Toyota Echo...knock yourself out, you're FREE to do so! Just save the value judgment.....you obviously don't have the capability to judge anyone else's behaviors.
Published: January 23, 2006 5:02 PM
over time unions have destroyed companies and even industries. steel? gm? ford?
Published: January 23, 2006 6:13 PM
Having taken a two-week computer training course with faculty from liberal arts, I can attest to the anti-Wal-Mart ferver among the left. Some of the comments on the blog are intelligent, but there are the usual "Wal-Mart is a town-killer" statements that simply are not true.
Published: January 23, 2006 6:25 PM
antilib,
While the comment about people not shopping at Walmart being stupid might be a little bit curt, your interpretation is a little bit hyperbolic and polemic.
Saying that you think someone's stupid for not doing X isn't the same as saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever they want to do. I think that people who live paycheck to paycheck and don't think about saving for the future are stupid; doesn't mean I think they should be forced to save.
Oh yea, just for the heck of it: Toyota Echo -- relatively cheap car, good quality, great MPG. Living at Walmart? Well, I guess one could mean living predominantly on furniture bought there. So what? Always eating at McDonald's? Well, time is valuable, although if I'm going to go fast-food, I prefer Burger King. Also, regarding the general quality of stuff to be bought at Walmart, I haven't found it to be of very low quality.
As for Made-in-China-Junk, I'm quite thankful for the level of international division of labor that we do have. I don't believe in paying extra money for a brand-names. And I've found that alot of the time, it's American stuff that is crap, particularly in our gas-guzzling cars. Even the once-lowly Hyundai cars are now, despite being priced lower than Toyota or Honda, reliable cars.
Published: January 23, 2006 7:01 PM
Tom DiLorenzo is the Bill O'Reilly of
libertarianism.
Published: January 23, 2006 7:05 PM
The day will come and it's here for the most part, the only places that you will be able to shop at are the big box stores. Competition will be a thing of the past. Think of all the chain stores which have vanished over the past 20 or so years.
Published: January 23, 2006 7:46 PM
the only places that you will be able to shop at are the big box stores
If you have a problem with these establishments, you may want to consider that they thrive in the post-WWII freeway-based urban environments that our governments (at every level) have gone to great lengths (and expense) to create.
These retailers exist, in their current form, largely because of massive 9-lane government-built artery roads (they call them "business corridors") that have been built in just about every major city and town, for the express purpose of attracting those very retailers.
The same governments that you want to enlist to punish Wal-Mart for existing and succeeding are the governments that created the conditions in which they have grown.
Which is but one more example of my theory that if you look into just about any problem, you'll find an ill-conceived government program as its root cause.
Published: January 23, 2006 8:35 PM
>
Oh Please. Don't go about licking Left's boots.
Published: January 23, 2006 10:14 PM
Good article. I do believe that there is a concerted effort to do "top down organizing" and it is effective. Management does not suffer any work stoppages or pickets at their doors. Some Walmart stores are unionized, but not in the United states where this admnistration assists business to the detriment of the employees.
A recent stat in the Wall Street Journal "48 million workers in this country do not have any retirement plans". Unions fight for those things. Is it any wonder that the latest minng accident happened to non union miners working on a holiday for straight time.
The reason that walmart sells so much is that it has become the market of last resort due to real wages not keeeping up with inflation. Just drive down Hwy 287 in Tx. and see the results of walmartization in all the little towns that once had a variety of stores in them. VA visual example of what happens when towns do not have the diversity any more.
Published: January 24, 2006 12:31 AM
Interesting article. Would be even more interesting if references existed for the things in the articles that are listed as facts.
I am always willing to listen to a good argument as long as it's FACT based and not emotionalbased.
Too much of this article feels based on just emotions(I FEEL the stores are dirtier) then facts(survey xyz have interviewed x nr of shoppers).
This article would not pass the test with many professors or teachers. Most would return it with a C adding "Please include sources for your facts".
As the saying goes in Sweden "Gör om , Gör rätt" = Do over, Do it right.
Looking forward to a revised article with references.
Published: January 24, 2006 6:39 AM
Though I agree with the basic premises of the article, I found it ineffective. Robert Lefever says communication takes place in the temperate zone and I tend to agree with him. This wasn't written in the temperate zone. If the goal of an article is to change anybody's mind, the wrong way to go about it is to keep referring to anyone that disagrees with you as ignorant. This approach merely hardens people in their pre-established positions and does nothing to change minds.If teachers are truly to teach and not propagandize, tone it down to the temperate zone please.
Published: January 24, 2006 6:52 AM
Prof. DiLorenzo gets it right, both content and tone.
As to the complaint that Wal*Mart drives suppliers to price points that force them to produce inferior products to survive---well, that must mean Wal*Mart consumers, by the multi-millions, are indiscriminate dolts, buying all that "junk" 24/7 as they seem to do.
Or, perhaps it's not "junk" at all, and Wal*Mart has fulfilled its mission as a buyers' broker. Further, the supplier and Wal*Mart assume the increased volume sold overcomes lower margins, while the consumer notes that the price for the exact same product at store X was significantly higher,--- and the consumers in queue behind him/her note the same.
Yes, the lobbying in Washington has a stench to it, but, as the distinguished Lincoln biographer hints, one wouldn't want to be downwind of malodorous Maryland either.
Published: January 24, 2006 7:47 AM
Antilib and others, I never said that anyone was stupid for not shopping at Wal-Mart. I simply said: "It is the people who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart that sound stupid to me." They sound stupid because of the stupid reasons they give for not shopping at Wal-Mart, the stupid things they say about people who defend Wal-Mart, the stupid things they say about Professor DiLorenzo's fine article, and the stupid things they say about Wal-Mart. There are plenty of "good" reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart, as I intend to write about soon. And by the way, I don't live at Wal-Mart (I live in a house), I don't eat at McDonalds (I prefer Mexican), and I don't drive a Toyota Echo (I drive a gas-hungry Chevy SUV).
Published: January 24, 2006 8:17 AM
Knee-jerk libertarianism.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:26 AM
My issue in the article is with comparing Wal-Mart with Nike. While Wal-Mart passes their lower costs on to customers as lower prices, Nike spends their savings on huge endorsements to pro athletes in order to generate sales at exhorbitantly high prices.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:43 AM
Mr. Beefcake, I am not sure that someone who's apparently incapable of constructing an argument longer than a sentence fragment should be throwing around accusations like "knee-jerk."
Published: January 24, 2006 8:45 AM
gforme,
"48 Million Americans do not have retirement plans"
Why is that? And, in any case, what do you call social security?
Published: January 24, 2006 10:35 AM
I thought this piece was crummy, and could easily think of specific counter examples to many of his poo-slinging points. Wegman's grocers, out of Rochester, NY is the single best grocery store I have ever been to in my entire life, I'm not kidding, and it is union and has been for years. The service and quality is great. On the other hand, Trader Joes out here in California is also an amazing store, and is non-union and treats their employees very well. The article was just a poorly written antiunion hack piece. There is a whole lot wrong with unions that could fill up any number of well written and convincing antiunion hack pieces...why publish this junk?
Published: January 24, 2006 10:43 AM
Hey Gas-hole, why don't you help DiLorenzo dig
up some supporting evidence for his rants (as
others have suggested) instead of acting like
someone farted in church when they don't think
Wal-Mart is the greatest thing on earth.
Published: January 24, 2006 10:49 AM
Beefcake,
Not ONE said that Wal-Mart is the best thing on earth. Such hyperbole does nothing for your case. The evidence against unions is pretty clear: fewer and fewer workers consider joining unions with each passing year.
Published: January 24, 2006 11:33 AM
Just because Freddy tries to kill Jason, it doesn't mean Jason is now a hero. Just because the unions and government attack Wal-Mart doesn't mean Wal-Mart is something wonderful. "The enemy of my enemy" fallacy.
Asking why Unions attack nonunion workers is a bit like asking why the insurgency in Iraq doesn't put on uniforms and march against well entrenched defensive positions in front of bases. In short, they aren't stupid.
Meanwhile, the company isn't protecting the non-union workers. You might argue that it isn't their job (one wonders about the safety of employees inside...). Labor is for such companies just a commodity. A union wants to be the monopoly supplier.
A company that takes care of its workers breaks that model, so unions hate them more. How dare you do anti-capitalist things like providing day-care or health services without a government (or union) gun to your head?
Returning to the union as insurgency paradigm, they cannot effectively attack management, though I am quite sure they would prefer to threaten or actually burn down the houses in the ritzy gated communities of management instead of the shacks of the scabs, but the former can afford and will pay to protect their homes.
And burning the factories effectively will destroy the very jobs they want, so they won't attack there.
I will note that many things are confused in the discussion, but the fundamental problem is the willingness and societal acceptance of the use of vandalism and violence by unions. Not their goals, ideas, policies, or whatever else. They might be stupid or evil, or wise and good, but the difference is they will use evil means to bring those ends about.
Try a simple thought experiment. You have a goal (in this case a labor monopoly, but you can also think Iraqi insurgent) and are willing to use violence to obtain your goal. Do you destroy objects which will render your goal moot? Do you attack hardened targets? Or do you attack the most vulnerable point - one the enemy isn't willing or able to defend yet is vital to his position?
The company that considers Labor as a commodity - a bunch of interchangable cattle - won't defend scabs, their property, or their families. The Union can then ask reasonably why the scabs will work for someone who doesn't care (except maybe in some remote and abstract way) that they are being injured or killed? Meanwhile the companies usually employ their own thugs. This is a mistake no matter how justified they may be in doing so (unless it is to protect the replacement workers).
There is a 4th generation warfare component to economics or whatever economics plus the threat or use of violence is called. The Unions may have been the first to use it, but my reading of the historical conflicts here read a great deal like Iraq - the david-goliath problem and that victory or defeat is at a moral level.
Unions want to be victorious. To do so they must act like any insurgency or guerrila movement. (note that to win our Revolutionary War we needed to do the same thing). To expect them to act otherwise is irrational.
And they can only be defeated at the moral level, not at an intellictual or legal level. But that requires engaging in their battle, and showing moral leadership and maybe not worrying about stock options or the next quarter so much.
Whining about unions sounds a lot like the neocons whining about the insurgencies when they don't play fair either.
But let me also address the Mom and Pop fallacy since it always seems to appear. Wal-Mart is successful in a distorted, malinvestment environment. If you like Wal-Mart, you should like credit expansion since at first it allows newcomers access to cheaper credit, so they can undersell their more prudent competition who paid market rates for their capital. Then you should really enjoy the bankruptcy liquiditation of both the good and the bad companies when interest rates return to their proper levels.
If Wal-Mart is merely the beneficiary of the early stage of the "crack-up boom" occuring in China, then its ability to overwhelm Mom and Pop stores is not a good thing. Wal-Mart is a classic malinvestment (like Enron was because for a while they could hide their debt).
We complain today about the companies with lavish benefits to employees, forgetting that in the 1940's "wage and price freeze" environment, they couldn't pay more to attract workers, so they found a way around by offering health care, retirement, and other benefits. Now that the world has moved on, people here are laughing at them for being so stupid, but they were merely the ones who took the best advantage of the economic distortions at the time. As taxes went up benefits (which were not included in income) were more valuable on the margin. Who here wouldn't work for minimum wage if everything they used was paid for by the company - housing, cars, fuel, food, entertainment...
Wal-Mart's success, insofar as it depends on a different set of economic distortions will prove to be as bad in the long run as Ford and GM's retirement benefits.
If the world economic situation ends in a reversal with China no longer being able to provide either cheap credit or cheap goods, and Wal-Mart goes out of business, is anyone going to eat crow here? Or are we just watching WMT on the ticker (like GOOG, and MSFT or ENE or others before) and weighing success on that basis?
Published: January 24, 2006 11:46 AM
Antilib's best argument;
"So, let me see: You think anyone who doesn't like cheap crap, cruddy stores and junk made in China is stupid? Now there's some value system for you!"
Antilib, have you ever BEEN in a Wal-Mart? Sure, they have their share of cheaply-made bric-a-brac, just like any other store does. The majority of their sales, however, are recognized name brands. Both the brands and the store would suffer if the quality wan't at least adequate. In most cases, however, it is significantly more than adequate.
It sounds like, rather than Wal-Mart, you have a problem with poor people - you think they should be forced to shop at local stores regardless of the cost. Not very progressive if you ask me.
Published: January 24, 2006 11:52 AM
tz sez;
"A company that takes care of its workers breaks that model, so unions hate them more. How dare you do anti-capitalist things like providing day-care or health services without a government (or union) gun to your head?"
More important - WHY do some companies do these things? Most times claims are made that they care about the employee, and I have no earthly idea whether in any given situation that is true. But the better aggregate explanation is that marginally better treatment increases marginal productivity and decreases turnover costs. This varies from situation to situation and cannot be legislated or mandated. Treating your people marginally better than the competition MAY give you a competitive advantage in costs or productivity. But then again, it might not. Unions claim to presume this advantage, across the board for every employee and every business. This cannot be empirically true.
Published: January 24, 2006 12:01 PM
Vince,
Possibly many companies arrange things in a worker-friendly manner simply for productivity and "empirically" demonstratable reasons, but humans often do things for "irrational" reasons as well, such as pride, morality, sense of duty, selfish wish to have a decent environment to work, etc etc. And if these things happen to affect the bottom line, fan-freaking-tastic. As someone who has been in unions and in management, in union and non-union shops. Your point about the variablity from situation to situation also holds for this. Sometimes unions are good, sometimes they are crummy, sometimes they are neither and both all at once. The reality is that the world is a complicated and often messy place where no dogma or doctrine tends to hold true in every situation and time. It might be easier if things were otherwise, but they aren't.
Published: January 24, 2006 12:31 PM
Big Government loves unions because instead of negotiating with the marketplace which is dispassionate, decentralized and scrupulous (a voluntary transaction cannot be dishonest), they deal with union bureaucrats, that are typically first or second generation thugs. Just the sort of folks that politicians know how to deal with.
As America drifts into fascism the diligent reader should bone up on what Hitler did with unions in Germany. He loved them too ...
In America the unions have justifiably lost most of their clout, just like the socialists. The burueaucrats are still in the bushes seeking an avenue to power. The socialists seek redress through envirnmental regulation, and the union goonery through the tactics Dr. Dilorenzo documents.
Since governments love unions I must oppose them on principle. History is clea ron why.
Published: January 24, 2006 12:47 PM
lowkey:
The statement "no dogma or doctrine tends to hold true in every situation and time" is a performative contradiction. If we assume your statement to be true, we see it to be a counter example to itself. What that means is that your statement is false.
Published: January 24, 2006 12:58 PM
If the world economic situation ends in a reversal with China no longer being able to provide either cheap credit or cheap goods, and Wal-Mart goes out of business, is anyone going to eat crow here?
Why would we? Why personalize the debate?
Wal-Mart is not responsible for federal interest rates, the very existence of the Fed, or the economic policies of China.
If "Wal-Mart is successful in a distorted, malinvestment environment," then I suggest that you will find no more enthusiastic supporters for the elimination of that malinvestment environment than the avid Mises.org readers.
Published: January 24, 2006 1:33 PM
As taxes went up benefits (which were not included in income) were more valuable on the margin.
Don't companies still get tax breaks for providing benefits, although I think it's been complicated somewhat?
Published: January 24, 2006 2:14 PM
lowkeylyesmith said;
"The reality is that the world is a complicated and often messy place where no dogma or doctrine tends to hold true in every situation and time."
Not to pick on you - a lot of what you said made sense. But one generally applicable principle we have seen proven out in our lifetimes is that government control of economies and economic actors is destructive. Unions are simply a labor monopoly that is enforced by government at the point of a gun.
I visited an exhibit on the history of coal mining in West Virginia recently, and was astonished to discover that many of the mines were unionized around the turn of the century, prior to FDR's making them mandatory, but that as the industry declined, so did the influence of the unions. Later, even more astonishing, the United Mine Workers actually funded mining companies' purchases of longwall mining machines that destroyed thousands of mining jobs! So you are right, even within the same union you could historically find a range of opposing policies.
But what DiLorenzo is presenting here is a specific tactic orchestrated by the AFL-CIO, which, visible recent schisms notwithstanding still represents the voice and policies of organized labor in this country. I know of no union that has denounced these political tactics being used against Wal-Mart.
As I said before, Wal-Mart's sins against true free-market capitalism are many. But so are their competitors. Unilateral disarmament is not an option when it comes to using the Interstate highway system to move goods, for example. If Wal-Mart wants Austrians, libertarians, and other classical liberals to rally to its defense, yes it would be a good idea if they forsook blatently anti-liberal policies like eminent domain seizures , and I hope they do. I don't think their founder would have agreed with getting towns to take people's property so he could build a store.
Wal-Mart is a lightning rod because they are successful. They are successful because they sell high-quality goods at low prices. One only has to shop there to find out how popular the stores are with the poor and the elderly. Complaints that Wal-Mart destroys jobs in a town are certainly worth examining, but I have yet to be provided with anything like empirical evidence.
"The High Cost Of Low Price", the anti-Wal-Mart documentary that the WM haters seem to love was TERRIBLY disappointing in that regard - they offered nothing new, just anecdotes about small sellers of goods at inflated prices going out of business, boo-hoo. Where's the meat and potatoes, folks? Where are the stealing, the cheating, the satanic ceremonies in the back room? At best, the case against Wal-Mart seems exactly the same case that could be made against Target, Costco, BJ's, Kmart, or any other chain discounter. Except for one thing - Wal-Mart is more successful.
Published: January 24, 2006 4:13 PM
Mr. Daliessio says "It sounds like, rather than Wal-Mart, you have a problem with poor people - you think they should be forced to shop at local stores regardless of the cost. Not very progressive if you ask me"
Now let me get this straight: Your argument was that people who DON'T shop at Wally World are - in YOUR own words - STUPID. I simply attacked your nonsensical argument. Period.
I could give a flip where people shop. I don't shop at Needless Markup any more than I do at Wally World. Both of them are on the opposite end of the bell curve, as far as I'm concerned.
Yep, I have been in a Wal-Mart. I find them places filled with depressingly cheap crap, employees who would rather scowl at you than help, and hordes of the stinking, fetid poor. That's just my opinion. So what.
You, however, seem to think that their merchandise is "adequate" to "more than adequate". You're entirely entitled to that opinion. I happen to think your opinion on this issue is "significantly less than adequate", bordering on "abysmally incorrect". Again, so what?
The article in question, as has been said here, is a cheap hack job against unions, and an emotional appeal to the "perfection" of Wally World. Unions exist for their own sake - not for their workers. I don't think there are too many arguments of merit to contradict that.
Wally World exists, in part, because of their exploitation of low-wage workers, dumb laws, dumber lawmakers, and the inability of our "Free Market Society" to permit (Notice I did not say PROVIDE) the average worker to earn a decent salary.
Wal-Mart caters to the poor. Great. Someone has to. They're a huge market - and getting bigger everyday as we compete in a race to the bottom with India, China, Pakistan, Bangledesh, Viet Nam.....I can wait for the day when we, too, have feces in the street and beggars on every corner. But that's a whole nother story.
So save your precious pretention at indignation. It doesn't wash. Your adoration of and devotion to Wally World doesn't give you credence in any discussion where Wally's faults are exposed, and it's proponents are shown to be shills, at best, frauds and worst.
Mr. DiLorenzo would make a great contributer to the WalMart "Truth" website...the one THEY sponsor. Which, BTW, is just as truth-devoid as those of WalMartWatch and the other union-sponsored mouthpieces.
This whole discussion is about two players, neither of which is angelic. Wal-Mart is as vicious to its' suppliers as Unions are to their targets. Full Stop. Defending one as "angelic" while the other is "demonized" is a fools errand.
Of course....there's a lot of defending going on in here.
Published: January 24, 2006 4:24 PM
I don't always buy at WalMart, but when I do I spend less for the things I would buy anyway. That leaves me more money to spend elsewhere.
Unless someone shows me how WalMart uses force (the company does indeed try to utilize zoning and "planning boards" to their benefit), that's the end of it for me.
Published: January 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Antilib, please provide one example where WalMart has used force or fraud against their suppliers.
Published: January 24, 2006 4:46 PM
antilib sez;
"Your argument was that people who DON'T shop at Wally World are - in YOUR own words - STUPID."
Me: I never called anybody stupid. But you sir are veering in that direction.
"I have been in a Wal-Mart. I find them places filled with depressingly cheap crap, employees who would rather scowl at you than help, and hordes of the stinking, fetid poor."
Me: Which goes to my claim that you are anything but progressive, and that you hate poor people, QED
"You, however, seem to think that their merchandise is "adequate" to "more than adequate". You're entirely entitled to that opinion. I happen to think your opinion on this issue is "significantly less than adequate", bordering on "abysmally incorrect"."
Me: It isn't just my opinion - the market (retarded by government as it is in this country) has found their products more than adequate.
"Wally World exists, in part, because of their exploitation of low-wage workers, dumb laws, dumber lawmakers, and the inability of our "Free Market Society" to permit (Notice I did not say PROVIDE) the average worker to earn a decent salary."
Me: As it sits now, we do NOT have a "Free Market Society", as you term it, we have a corporatist society;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
"This whole discussion is about two players, neither of which is angelic. Wal-Mart is as vicious to its' suppliers as Unions are to their targets."
Me: Great observation. Except no supplier is forced at gunpoint to deal with Wal-Mart.
Published: January 24, 2006 5:16 PM
A couple more questions:
1)What mechanism can you elucidate by which Wal-Mart is impoverishing America? Do other companies use this mechanism? Is it illegal?
2)Can you think of an even bigger organization, that uses explicit and implicit force to directly impoverish people by demanding a portion of their wages and otherwise decreasing job-creating investment in this country?
Published: January 24, 2006 5:20 PM
Paul E.
I'd agree with you if I hadn't used the word "tend". But even if I hadn't, sheesh, isn't that kind of a banal point to make in this context?
Loe kEE
Published: January 24, 2006 5:35 PM
anti-lib said:
"Wally World exists, in part, because of their exploitation of low-wage workers, dumb laws, dumber lawmakers, and the inability of our "Free Market Society" to permit (Notice I did not say PROVIDE) the average worker to earn a decent salary."
What IS a decent salary? Is it the same for a single youth than for a working mother of three? Is it the same for you as it would for your neighbor? I believe you just wield that term around because it sounds pretty, not because it is based on sound logic.
The idea that Walmart exists because it can exploit workers is specious, at best. Not one of Walmart employees were made to sign a contract at gunpoint, meaning they found the wages and conditions acceptable.
"Wal-Mart caters to the poor. Great. Someone has to. They're a huge market[...]"
Hmmm, not ONE has to do anything. Walmart simply opens its doors to anyone that wants to do business with them. The fact is that the lower price range of many products they sell is advantageous for the poor, since they can stretch their dollar more than if they could only buy from a more expensive source, like the much (too much) vaunted "mom & pop" stores.
Published: January 24, 2006 5:47 PM
It is utterly amazing to me how anti-working class so-called libertarians are! Maybe they want to deny their less than upper class roots - I know, pardon the psychic analysis. The rich aren't libertarians, for an obvious reason: this crony capitalist system of theirs suits them just fine. So why blame the working man or woman when he or she organizes to try to get a piece of the pie they created with their sweat and tears, blood, too? Are the unions tactics any different than the giant corporations buying the votes of the DeLays, Neys, or Hunters? Don't forget union philosophy was developed in the (probably halcyon to the libs) days of the street battles between the company goon squads and striking workers. How many workers were killed by the Pinkertons, for instance? Should unions modify their attitude now that the entire weight of the government and corporate establishment is on the attack against them? Helped by the arriviste libertarians and their media mouthpieces. As for the professor, I wonder what his response would be to an attack on the tenure system. You know, that closed-shop system that allows a multitude of pointy heads to sit on their behinds, suck hind tit and talk sh*t, while us workers pay their high (taxpayer-paid) salaries by busting our asses all day long. Well? Isn't one of you libs gonna defend tenure?
Published: January 24, 2006 5:49 PM
Buckwheat asks:
"How many workers were killed by the Pinkertons, for instance? "
I give up... HOW many?
"Should unions modify their attitude now that the entire weight of the government and corporate establishment is on the attack against them?"
You MUST be kidding. Government is specially cozy towards unions - the fact that, year by year, less and less workers are willing to join a union is evidence that worker's choice has been working against unions, not the government.
Published: January 24, 2006 5:58 PM
Buckwheat,
I'd agree with you...except that the Repubs have never shown any interest in repealing the Wagner Act, Davis-Bacon, The Railway Act, or the National Labor Relations Act.
Combined with the amazing growth of unions in the government sector, this tells me one thing - unions are good for big business, even better for big government. But they are bad for non-union workers who already have jobs. And they are bad for us in general because the economic effect is to drive up wage rates by restricting supply. This tends to drive the small businessman out of the market for employees, even faster than Wal-Mart does.
Published: January 24, 2006 6:06 PM
Hi Loe kEE,
“I'd agree with you if I hadn't used the word "tend". But even if I hadn't, sheesh, isn't that kind of a banal point to make in this context?�
I’ll take your second point first as I do think it’s important and here’s why: The problem people often have with Austrian conclusions is that they are based on deductive logic and so they are a priori. That means the claims and conclusions it makes, if true at all, are necessarily true and only more correct premises or more correct logic, and not empirical evidence can refute them. That means when we say A is A, logic dictates that we do not allow contradictions such as A is not A sometimes. On the other hand, the methods people often use to dismiss the a priori-ness or the correctness of an Austrian conclusion is via their own a priori statements. The problem is, they use fallacious logic in the process, and they are usually unaware of it to boot.
On your defense citing your use of the word “tend�, I would respond this way. If we give weight to your spin on your use of the word “tend� and allow that it avoids the performative contradiction, what your statement evaluates to is “very little dogma or doctrine holds true in every situation and time�. This avoids the contradiction and now sounds quite true as well. But it now has the defect of not saying much. On first brush, the statement appeared to dismiss with authority any conclusions that are completely general. To avoid a contradiction, however, it must merely affirm the possibility that some things are always true in all situations and times.
Published: January 24, 2006 6:29 PM
Buckwheat asks;
"Isn't one of you libs gonna defend tenure? "
I won't answer for Professor DiLorenzo, but if universities were private organizations they could have any kind of employment policy they want. So no, I will assert that the tenure system and the university system in general have been compromised by the state and have no place in a liberty-based system.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:11 PM
Wal-Mart is not an example of capitalism, because there is no capitalism. There is corporatism, a kind of fascism. //
The idea that in 2006 America we have a "free market" is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that Austrians are implying such - by defending Wal-Mart as an example of the free market in action. //
No company exists in isolation. The network of laws and regulations govern it. The laws and regulations, moreover, produce economic distortions which necessarily redound throughout the economy. In considering the immense interference with economic life that our government has undertaken over the last 100 years or so, the effects of which have of necessity only multiplied and necessarily (or a priori) are pernicious, one cannot assert that any company owes its relative success wholly to noncoercive actions. And we see empirically that Wal-Mart engages in coercion, like all "successful" business under corporatism or crony capitalism: for example, its aggressive exploitation of Eminent Domain, the various tax breaks it receives (i.e., Wal-Mart sees no problem in socializing part of its costs; it shifts the general tax burden to other victims), and, most of all, the positive incentives it receives from local governments - not just tax breaks but subsidies. This is a coercive entity, not a heroic producer. (Re. the terminology of "producer": Wal-Mart doesn't *make* anything; the production of its brand products is outsourced; Wal-Mart is a middleman, a retailer.) //
It is disingenuous to claim, "Nobody put a gun to the head of the Wal-Mart worker, forcing him to work for Wal-Mart" or "Nobody put a knife to the throat of the Wal-Mart customer, forcing him to buy from Wal-Mart." Nobody put a physical gun to your physical head, forcing you to put up with inflation, either. Does this mean that inflation is not coercive, i.e. is not theft? Nobody put a physical knife to your physical windpipe, forcing you to pay the gasoline tax when you buy gas at the local pump. After all, you are free not to buy gas at $3.00 per gallon; you are free not buy any gas at all and sit home and starve. But the gas retailer, wholesale supplier, et al will ultimately face physical sanctions should he refuse to turn over his part of his revenue as payment of the tax. In short, we live/subsist in a coercive system, in which economic distortions are produced that have incalculable distant effects and do not readily admit of "free" action. Certainly Wal-Mart is not John Galt, a capitalist hero. It is more like Orren Boyle - or even Tinky Holloway. (I take these names from characters in Ayn Rand's novel *Atlas Shrugged*.) //
To admire Wal-Mart is akin to admiring the owners of sports teams who get municipalities to subsidize stadiums and arenas. Such "capitalists" are no more than politically connected crooks. Even crooks can work hard in making and leveraging their deals. //
As to personal and esthetic issues, Wal-Marts essentially sell these items:
1. Clothes that quickly wear out ("name brands," by the way, are not an indicator of quality; the branding function does not operate any longer, except among some high price items);
2. "Name brand" candy and sugary sodas;
3. Decently priced toiletries and cosmetics (pretty good);
4. Low-end CDs and movies;
5. So-so appliances;
6. Greeting cards and decoratives;
7. A variety of largely cosmetic auto supplies (pretty good);
8. Poor quality furniture and furnishings;
9. Poor quality shoes; and
10. So-so sporting goods and garden tools.
They also sell plants, most of which are already dead or dying.//
But the point is that the inventory, prices, and quality do not reflect the free choice of free people engaging in free trade in a free society. They are more like a matter of "you take what's available." //
The atmosphere of a Wal-Mart is like that of some Soviet store that one reads about in fiction. There is the same slothful indifference, the same low-IQ charity cases "working," the same dirty floors, the same kind of poor, half-crippled, sad or pathetic clientele. There is the same worker trying to subsist on starvation wages. The only difference in atmosphere is the forced "positivity." It's a place where you're supposed to be up - but everyone is curiously down. Wal-Marts have the air of a flop house being visited by a Republican president. (Super Wal-Marts are a little better.) //
These are some of the reasons - you may call them stupid, if you wish - why I not longer go to Wal-Mart.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:20 PM
The atmosphere of a Wal-Mart is like that of some Soviet store that one reads about in fiction. There is the same slothful indifference, the same low-IQ charity cases "working," the same dirty floors, the same kind of poor, half-crippled, sad or pathetic clientele. There is the same worker trying to subsist on starvation wages.
You have clearly never actually seen a country that has experienced socialism. For one, there are products on the shelves, all the time.
And, really "starvation wages"? The biggest health problem among Americans (especially the poor) is obesity, an affliction of material abundance. Obesity also seems to be prevalent among Wal-Mart employees, by my informal survey.
You also offer the latest example of a logical fallacy that, for the life of me, I cannot understand. Your argument goes something like this: the market for the retail goods that Wal-Mart sells is less-than-free, so that makes it OK to make it even less free???
What IS that? I hear it all the time, but it makes absolutely no sense. I have to believe that there is some kind of conclusion or element in the rationale that you are leaving out. Please try to connect all the dots with this one, because I really do not see how so many people keep bringing it up.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:47 PM
Clarification: please note that I am comparing the *atmosphere* of Wal-Marts to fictionally stereotyped Soviet stores. I understand that Soviet inventories were incredibly scanty, while Wal-Mart inventories are incredibly plentiful, a life-and-death difference. However, it is useful to note that in the old days, in a relatively freer America, large stores comparable to today's Wal-Marts in terms of unhappy sordidness and uncleanliness, did not last very long; did not make billions of dollars and proliferate unchecked.
Published: January 24, 2006 8:54 PM
George, I believe you have me confused with someone else. I don't wish to make Wal-Mart less free. I am not on the side of the union thugs.
I am not on the side of the Wal-Mart thugs, is all.
Both are unacceptable to me. But let me reiterate for you: I am not supporting legislation against Wal-Mart. I would like to see the whole economy (including Wal-Mart) much freer, on the scale of several orders.
I merely want to disabuse people of the harmful illusion (especially bad on a site devoted to scientific economic principles) that Wal-Mart is a company whose success is a credit to a Liberal order. It isn't. Twisting facts to portray it as such, in order to win some kind of union-busting argument, is not only dishonest but particularly perplexing to see on a website devoted to Austrian principles.
Published: January 24, 2006 9:03 PM
For the eddification of Mr. Torres, apparently unacquainted with some American labor history, here are a few tidbits:
The Homestead Strike. One occasion where the Pinkerton Guards, trying to pave the way for the introduction of scabs, opened fire on striking workers was in Homestead, Pennsylvania, in 1892. In the ensuing battle, eleven strikers and spectators were shot to death.
In 1887, the Louisiana Militia, aided by bands of "prominent citizens," shot at least 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking to gain a dollar-per-day wage, and lynched two strike leaders.
In 1894, federal troops killed 34 American Railway Union members in the Chicago area.
In 1909, female garment workers went on strike in New York; many were arrested. A judge told those arrested: "You are on strike against God."
In 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, occupying the top three floors of a ten-story building in New York City, was consumed by fire. One hundred and forty-seven people, mostly women and young girls working in sweatshop conditions, lost their lives. Approximately 50 died as they leapt from windows to the street; the others were burned or trampled to death as they desperately attempted to escape through stairway exits locked as a precaution against "the interruption of work". On 11 April the company's owners were indicted for manslaughter.
These examples, while dated, accurately depict the continuing attitudes of the corporate so-called elite. Today, though, they murder you by taking your pension, laying you off after sending your job to some third-world workers paradise, and dismantling the social safety net.
I wonder, Francisco, would you consider the last sentence in the Shirtwaist example evidence of government coddling of unions and workers? How about The Taft-Hartley Labor Act, curbing strikes, passed in 1947? The feds use it to this day to stop strikes by longshoremen, airline employees, etc., certainly in the private sector where according to the lib fantasy, government should not intrude. I don't read any lib rhetoric about this type of government interference in private contracts. Lib focus on and animus to unions and workers rights only furthers the agenda of the facist corporatist system evolving in this country. This is sad because libertarians are the natural allies of working people but many prefer to identify with their exploiters. This defect results from their misplaced faith in their god, the market.
Published: January 25, 2006 1:02 AM
Buckwheat sez;
"The Homestead Strike. One occasion where the Pinkerton Guards, trying to pave the way for the introduction of scabs, opened fire on striking workers was in Homestead, Pennsylvania, in 1892. In the ensuing battle, eleven strikers and spectators were shot to death."
He fails to mention that the strikers occupied the mill's property with arms.
"In 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, occupying the top three floors of a ten-story building in New York City, was consumed by fire. One hundred and forty-seven people, mostly women and young girls working in sweatshop conditions, lost their lives. Approximately 50 died as they leapt from windows to the street; the others were burned or trampled to death as they desperately attempted to escape through stairway exits locked as a precaution against "the interruption of work". On 11 April the company's owners were indicted for manslaughter. "
As well they should have been.
How does this prove the utility or necessity, or even the legality of forced unionism?
Published: January 25, 2006 10:04 AM
Buckwheat sez;
"This defect results from their misplaced faith in their god, the market."
As opposed to your totally rational faith in unions and government.
Published: January 25, 2006 10:07 AM
Buckwheat, your parade of horribles is a transparent exercise in propaganda.
Austrians are familiar with logical reasoning. In logical terms, your recitation of propaganda disguised as history (further disguised as argument) boils down to a rather weak proposition: "Some business owners may have committed wrongs against some employees, therefore unions are great."
Needless to say, there are a few holes in your argument.
Austrians oppose unions because the central feature of unions is that they forcibly exclude non-members from accepting employment. They exist for the purpose of excluding competition, as an artificial barrier to entry for the people you so often demean as "scabs." Austrians oppose this form of economic protectionism.
For example, when unionists "strike," this is often used as a euphemism for showing up at a work site to assault or intimidate would-be workers from agreeing to work in their place. This is a violent, aggressive act, and property owners have every right to expel such people.
Owners of businesses have also been known to commit wrongs against employees. We oppose that, too.
libertarians are the natural allies of working people but many prefer to identify with their exploiters
I completely reject your use of the term "exploit" in this context. It is the most mis-used word in the context of employment. It is a word that launched a thousand unions, and it is a lie. Voluntary agreements between employers and employees are mutually beneficial, and therefore cannot be exploitative.
Published: January 25, 2006 10:30 AM
Mr. Daliessio:
"I have been in a Wal-Mart. I find them places filled with depressingly cheap crap, employees who would rather scowl at you than help, and hordes of the stinking, fetid poor."
Me: Which goes to my claim that you are anything but progressive, and that you hate poor people, QED
OK - how does my statement about Wally World make me "Anything but progresive"? Furthermore, where is it written that "progressive" is a desirable thing in the first place? As far as hating the poor, I'm functionally indifferent to them. Poverty, in *most* cases, is a condition that can be remedied, not an affliction or a disease. So why is this an issue? It's entirely irrelevant as to what my opinion may or may not be with regard to any class of people. The discussion is about Wal-Mart, not about the people who shop there.
you say: "Me: As it sits now, we do NOT have a "Free Market Society", as you term it, we have a corporatist society;"
I agree. That's why there were quotes around the words "Free Market Society".
Curt Howard, "Antilib, please provide one example where WalMart has used force or fraud against their suppliers."
Fraud isn't a point I can prove against Wally World. That's a matter for the courts. Force, on the other hand, is exerted each and every day by Bentonville. Have you *ever* worked for a Wally World supplier? I have. You get these well-dressed, corporate sycophants who show up at your office and say "Either drop the price by X, or we'll use your competitor Y". That's a threat, and that is force. When you have a company of their size (Which, BTW, is bigger than a slew of COUNTRIES) they have the ability to engage in a variety of tactics that a smaller entity cannot. Yeah, I know, a Lib will call that "Free Market". It would be if the manufacturer had a viable choice....but in reality (someplace Lib's only appear to visit on occasion) it ain't.
There's a saying in the retail manufacturing world: "The only thing worse than not doing business with Wal-Mart, is actually doing business with Wal-Mart". It is a corporate policy of Wally World to *encourage* suppliers to move production "offshore" (Doncha just love that little euphamism for "Deindustrialize America"?) in order to lower prices.
Wal-Mart is relentless in their drive to lower prices. They have absolutely no concern whatsoever about what it takes, to the point of bankrupting many of their suppliers. The Lib POV would be that the "weak" were weeded from the garden. It's that Darwinian Economics of the Austrian school at work.
On the positive side, Wal-Mart provides a fairly narrow range of goods, targeted at the working poor, at an affordable price. That's very definately a "good". On the other side, they're engaging in a relentless campaign to shift production overseas, primarily to China, to put middle-class Americans out of work (which, in turn, makes them MORE reliant on Wal-Mart's low prices) and to vilify anyone who dares take them on.
Wal-Mart, like many companies, is decidedly two-faced about their position in our economy. They don't hesitate to scream about "pejoratives" like Maryland's recent Health-Care stupidity, but won't hesitate to go to the local planning board and demand the right to take blocks of residential land, via eminent domain, to build a new "SuperStore". Hmmmmm...on the one hand (or face, as it were) they demand a "Free Market", yet on the other hand (face) they want government intervention for land, tax breaks, abatements, et al, ad nauseum, ad absurdum.
No, Wal-mart isn't the AntiChrist, but they're not the Second Coming, either. I don't hate the people who shop there. I could care less (Actually I couldn't care less...I care ZERO) about them. They're free economic actors and act, presumably, in their own best interests.
Wal-Mart management are both rent-seeking, free-riders at the same time they're contributors to the overall economy. In other words, they're no different than any other company - just moreso because of their size. However, you'll never see me in a Wal-Mart, pushing a wobbly cart full of sub-standard junk, while jostling with the unwashed masses. (Just visit any Wal-Mart in central Dallas and you'll need a bath when you're done).
One last thing, especially for you, Mr. Daliessio: You're apparently quite enamored with Wally World and the denizens thereof. How many Nieman-Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Saks, Bergdorf's, (This list could go on and on) have you seen in the news lately where the shoppers engage in gun battles in the front of the store? (I recall two or three such stories in the last few weeks) Not exactly the kind of crowd you want in YOUR neighborhood, is it?
Francisco Torres: "What IS a decent salary? Is it the same for a single youth than for a working mother of three? Is it the same for you as it would for your neighbor? I believe you just wield that term around because it sounds pretty, not because it is based on sound logic."
I was very specific in saying that the market doesn't OWE anyone a specific standard of living. Each of us has a different "worth" to society and are compensated uniquely, in general. You're objecting to something I didn't say, and, in general, I agree with your perspective - except the smarmy ad hominem.
Furthermore you assert "The idea that Walmart exists because it can exploit workers is specious, at best."
Hmmmmm....I'm not so sure I agree with you. Wal-Mart is of such a size that it can do pretty much any damn thing it chooses to. They're not in business to give away anything - nor should they be. However, don't presume that they don't take advantage of their workforce at every opportunity. There are several settled, and current, class-action suits that assert otherwise. I tend to have more faith in the current and former Wal-Mart employees who say their employer is of low moral character. Your assertion of "speciousness" aside.
George Gaskell, in answer to a question you posed to David: I have, indeed, been to a store in a socialist state. They're frightfully sad. The argument made by David is, indeed, accurate: Your average Wal-Mart is a Lenin-era store, only with brighter colors and flourescent lights. The employees of Wal-Mart are just as friendly, competent and enthusiastic as the inmates of the Gulag. (Of course, without the great food)
You further argue: "You also offer the latest example of a logical fallacy that, for the life of me, I cannot understand. Your argument goes something like this: the market for the retail goods that Wal-Mart sells is less-than-free, so that makes it OK to make it even less free???"
I don't get it, either. I don't think I've read anyone here say that Wally's market is less than free and that people don't go there under their own motive power. It seems like this is what you want to read, and, therefore, attribute to others. People can shop or refuse to shop there at their whim. No arguments with that at all. So, what's the beef?
Buckwheat, maybe you'd elaborate on "It is utterly amazing to me how anti-working class so-called libertarians are!" I would tend to agree with you, but I'd like to understand more of why you think so. The case FOR unions, if that's what you're referring to, is a difficult one to make, regardless of whether someone is of the Lib cult or not.
Published: January 25, 2006 11:02 AM
antilib,
You misunderstood my objection. I object to your use of the term "decent salary" and your contention that the free market does not permit a person to receive a "decent" wage, especially since, as you accept, the concept of a "decent" wage is in the eye of the beholder and it is NOT (and could not be) an objective value. If a person accepts a certain wage voluntarily, it means that person found the wage level "decent" enough to accept it, otherwise the person would keep searching for a better deal.
"Each of us has a different "worth" to society and are compensated uniquely, in general."
You just added this ad-hoc comment; it was not in your previous post.
"However, don't presume that they don't take advantage of their workforce at every opportunity. There are several settled, and current, class-action suits that assert otherwise. I tend to have more faith in the current and former Wal-Mart employees who say their employer is of low moral character."
I remain skeptical of the moral character of BOTH parties, since each made a voluntary exchange when the employer hired the employee, the employee agreeing to the conditions offered by the employer - meaning that neither was doing anything out of pure altruism. A class-action suit only means that a disgruntled worker found it profitable to sue the company and not necessarily that the company had done anything wrong. Maybe Walmart established a bad policy; however the employee is free to object and walk out. Suing the company tells me that the employee felt he or she was "entitled" to something that, most likely, was not agreed at the time of hiring.
Published: January 25, 2006 11:40 AM
You get these well-dressed, corporate sycophants who show up at your office and say "Either drop the price by X, or we'll use your competitor Y". That's a threat, and that is force.
It most certainly is not.
Published: January 25, 2006 11:40 AM
antilib sez;
"How many Nieman-Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Saks, Bergdorf's, (This list could go on and on) have you seen in the news lately where the shoppers engage in gun battles in the front of the store? (I recall two or three such stories in the last few weeks) Not exactly the kind of crowd you want in YOUR neighborhood, is it?"
Again with disparaging the economically lacking (since you seem even to hate the word "poor").
Not to minimize your claims, but armed bank robberies take place every day in every city, including (especially) some of the tonier areas. I could then turn around and say "I saw two or three stories about bank robberies in the last three weeks - we should use the force of government to remove banks from our communities!" Does this make any sense? Clearly robbers go where the money is - high-volume retail and banking. How many counterexamples do I have to cite to prove your assertion is without merit? How many armed robberies at say (union) Acme markets must I cite to invalidate your analysis?
Published: January 25, 2006 12:27 PM
I am utterly amazed at how many of these threads turn into an either/or argument. Either you're anti-union/pro Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart/pro union. This is absurd. The article talked about unions and Wal-Mart. So the anti-Wal-Mart people come in and try to drag in everything that Wal-Mart does, in an attempt to do what? Defend unions? It ain't exactly clear just what you're trying to argue. But as has been pointed out, one doesn't have to be a Wal-Mart lover to be against unions or their attempts to unionized Wal-Mart.
But geez, some of the arguments presented by anti-Wal-Mart people are just silly. There are several Wal-Marts in my city, and most of them are pretty clean and well-organized. Yes, one of them tends to be a little worse than the others, but even they have managed to make improvements. So this is a pointless argument.
To say that libertarians are anti-working class makes no sense, either. Force Wal-Mart to raise their prices and guess what? It's the working class that will suffer.
Finally, refuting these silly arguments doesn't mean that I think Wal-Mart is perfect, or some kind of example of laissez-faire capitalism. However, given the existing regulatory, I do think that Wal-Mart is pretty good. Yes, we can point to some specific things that Wal-Mart does that aren't very good, are anti-libertarian, in fact. But none of that is a reason to force Wal-Mart to unionize, which was the topic of the article, remember?
Knock Wal-Mart down from its position as "king of the hill", and some other company will just take its place. Deal with the symptoms of a problem, and you still have a problem. The source of the Wal-Mart problem isn't Wal-Mart itself, but the system of corporatism, regulation, socialized health care, welfare, licensing, minimum wages, etc. that our government has created, with the willing support of most voters. Wal-Mart has just been the most successful in dealing with that environment while still trying to give customers what they want. That doesn't make Wal-Mart the target, but the decoy. You're attacking the Wal-Mart straw-man but leaving the system that created the problems intact.
Time to go to the source of the problem instead. Are you supporting the politicians, policies, and government that created the problem?
Published: January 25, 2006 1:27 PM
My point in posting the examples of company violence against workers was to make the point that unions have paid in blood for their rights, rights that many of you libs enjoy in your workplaces today, thank you very much.
In the Homestead strike, the workers armed themselves after the Pinkertons opened fire, killing several of the strikers. They won the fight, too, by the way.
About the Austrians, meaning the economists, I surmise, not the working class, I don't know much but I would be surprised if there were no union shops in Austria and the country doesn't seem to be suffering for it. After all, it was blue collar Europeans generally putting their lives on the line to defend their rights in the early years of the union movement in this country.
Unions, being composed of humans, have all their failings. I am a union member and my union does not always please me but I prefer its stewardship, pitiful as it may be, to relying on the whims of management. So I don't have faith or even trust in my union or our government, but I find the simplistic lib argument for kissing up to the lotus ass of the market even less appealing. There is no market in broad terms, and never has been. As soon as any human acquires the ability to control something valuable in economic terms, it soon becomes a monopoly or a cartel. That's human nature, and all the pissing and moaning from you libs ain't agonna change it. Organized working people have, and can.
Unions have always been in the vanguard where human and civil rights are concerned, and it's no happenstance that the decline of unionism has coincided with the resurgence of fascism in this nation. Austrians, being so well acquainted with Hitler, may recall one of his first policies was to destroy the independent workers unions, mostly by murdering their leaders. Totalitarianism and unionism are enemies. When unions were theoretically able to put millions of Americans into the street, the government had to tread much lighter than it does today. Unions - in this context, craft unions - also maintain standards respecting ability, much like the AMA, the FAA A & P license, or the state bar. Would libs remove all standards of competency or requirements of licensure in their abject surrender to the brillance of the market? I think so. Or do you not object to the above organizations forcing adherance to their standards by law? If you don't, you're hypocrites.
Union craftspeople have been proven to be more productive and able to maintain higher standards of workmanship than scab laborers, because they have to earn the right to call themselves journeyworkers. They can't just buy a box of tools and call themselves a mechanic like scabs do.
Libertarians ought to stop their naive sucking up to big money and business, encourage unionism and worker organizations, and join us in opposing corporatism and fascism. No one loathes governments more than the worker, as bad as libs think they despise them. We die in their bullshit wars, are robbed of our money by the IRS before we even see it, and suffer the abuses of their functionaries to a far greater degree than any other segment of society. So we got the right to bitch and organize ourselves to try to rectify the situation. Why do libs begrudge us that?
Published: January 25, 2006 1:53 PM
There is no market in broad terms, and never has been.
This makes no sense. You might as well say "there are no people and there never have been."
Totalitarianism and unionism are enemies.
I think you mean "rivals."
So we got the right to bitch and organize ourselves to try to rectify the situation.
Right behind "exploit," the term "organize" comes in a close second for the most abused, twisted propgagandistic word in matters of employment/labor.
"Organize" is a euphemism for "drive competitors away, with violence." The supposed "right" to do this that you refer to is merely the enlistment of the State to commit this crime for you. It would be immoral for you to physically assault, threaten, drag out or kill someone simply because he wants to compete with you in business and earn a living. Getting the State to do this for you is no different.
Published: January 25, 2006 2:40 PM
Mr. Torres: "Suing the company tells me that the employee felt he or she was "entitled" to something that, most likely, was not agreed at the time of hiring."
That would be true in many cases, *except* the law in California (and several other states) that says you cannot be forced to work during lunch, or cannot be coerced into giving "FREE" labor to the company.
That's why Wally got whacked with a $172M fine. You don't get hit that hard for no good reason.
How about the class action that asserts that tens-of-thousands of women were "discriminated" against? Surely you can't assert than unequal treatment in promotions, etc. was something NOT expected at hiring time.
There are several other examples (Wally just settled one in the north-midwest for $50M a few months ago). I'd agree if these cases were about a *new* benefit (Like the contractor's case against Microsoft a few years ago), but most of Wally's Woes are pretty basic stuff...and clearly, in most of the cases, Wally is wrong.
Mr. Daliessio: "Clearly robbers go where the money is - high-volume retail and banking."
Um, there ain't much moolah at the local Wally World...so why the gun battles in the stores? My assertion was, and is, that Wally's is not the kind of place *I* want to be. My odds of getting popped at the local Nieman-Marcus is decidedly lower than at a Wally location.
You go on to say "Again with disparaging the economically lacking (since you seem even to hate the word "poor")." Duh what? I said it several times, used it in a sentence, and gave a definition: I do not care about them. Period.
They have their interests, I have mine. Where's the difficulty in understanding this one? Furthermore, what difference does it make whether I love the poor or hate them? My opinion on the seething masses is totally irrelevant. Again, this is a discussion about unions vs. Wally World. Both of which are of ambiguously poor moral character.
Mr Clem, I agree with your position. Wally is the target du jour, and, rightfully so in many ways. However, if they go out of business it will be Crap-Mart, or Junk-Mart, or Cheap-Mart who takes their place. We could have this same argument and insert "Sears, Roebuck and Company"...assuming this discussion was about 80 years ago.
Mr. Gaskell:
"You get these well-dressed, corporate sycophants who show up at your office and say "Either drop the price by X, or we'll use your competitor Y". That's a threat, and that is force.
It most certainly is not.
I beg to differ. On second thought, I refuse to beg. I differ. You're wrong.
When you're larger than all but the G-7 nations, any time you issue a threat (Which is the Bentonville Way of Conducting Business) it's something to be taken seriously. If you, as a supplier, got that attitude from Mom&Pop, Inc., you'd say "Fine, don't let the door hit your fanny". Great. That's part of the "Free Market".
When you get the threat from Wally World, your choices get awfully narrow, awfully fast. They've put more firms out of business (Oh, and that pesky job loss thang) than has cholera and earthquakes combined. You want to use some ivory-tower, classicist version of "force", then please do so. When it's a discussion between a supplier and the world's largest company...that definition doesn't hold a lot of water.
If you want to be a Wally Apologist, you're free to do so....just dont't think the rest of the planet will swallow that bitter pill.
Published: January 25, 2006 5:12 PM
Antilib,
Someone's always going to be the world's largest company; that doesn't necessarily mean they hold some mystical power over us all. How big can a company get before you start defining everything they do as "force"? Is there a magic size below which they aren't capable of screwing everybody, and above that size they do nothing but screw everyone?
Published: January 25, 2006 6:08 PM
George Gaskell,
-Totalitarianism and unionism are enemies.-
I think you mean "rivals."
Ha! Well said.
Published: January 25, 2006 6:13 PM
Most of the complaints about Wal-Mart damaging the economy etc. should really be directed at monetary inflation. Wal-Mart will buy american and higher quality goods when the dollar is worth something. Until then, they (like every other retailer) have to respect the realities of the currency fiasco.
If and when the inflation monster is slain, I would expect companies like Wal-Mart (in its current incarnation) to adapt quickly and start buying american goods==perhaps selling them abroad and reversing the trade deficit.
Wal-Mart is a symptom, not a problem.
Published: January 25, 2006 8:48 PM
You want to use some ivory-tower, classicist version of "force", then please do so.
I use the term 'force' because it is one that most everyone can understand. To be more specific, in the context of economics, the Austrian school uses it to mean the use of express or implied threats of violence or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of physical harm.
That includes, incidentally, the threats made by governments to compel people to do, or not do, certain things. In short, everything government is and does is force and coercion.
In the case of the buyer and seller bargaining for a price, that process cannot, by definition, be an example of force, so long as both parties can choose to either make the deal or not without any fear of violent consequences.
In your example, the supplier can choose to not trade at Wal-Mart's asking price, which (let's say) means there is no deal. There is no violence that would follow that outcome. Thus it is not an act of force to bargain for price.
Contrast this scenario with, for example, a person who agrees to work for an employer on mutually agreeable (and mutually beneficial) terms. But, the government declares that this transaction is illegal because the position must be filled by a person who is a member of a special club. Even though the parties to this transaction are in perfect, voluntary agreement, the government, by enforcing this law, essentially threatens the employer and employee with physical violence (jail, or fines extracted under threat of jail) if they don't do as they are told. This is an example of coercion (i.e., force).
That is not an "ivory tower" definition of force. That is a plain, ordinary, everyday definition.
Published: January 25, 2006 10:37 PM
Mr. Gaskill, I totally reject your petty anti-union attitude. You cherry-pick the comments others make, post your own cute, lightweight witlessisms but seem unable to provde any coherent or prolonged statements of your own. Why don't you respond on the whole to the thrust of the posted statements? Or is it your personal philosophy only to pick at the selected sentences you understand? Your snide comments don't advance the debate the others are engaged in, and are intellectually contemptible.
Published: January 26, 2006 1:12 AM
If you people think you have startling revelations to make about WM you need to raise the internet sites of Rense.com & Loompanics Unlimited--wow! I shop WM when I know I will get the best deal but I personally prefer Dollar General, Family Dollar & Big Lots: I am CHEAP.
Published: January 26, 2006 2:43 AM
Mr. Buckwheat,
I provided a sincere, simple (and civil) definition of the term force, since the meaning of that word became an issue when Mr. Antilib disputed it. My (rather mundane) point, not intended to be snide in any way, is that the term "force" in this context contains an element of physical violence, or the threat thereof.
I then went on to explain how bargaining for prices does not involve force at all, and how excluding non-union members from potential employment is a prime example of it.
There is nothing "cute" about any of this. This is a basic economic analysis according to the Austrian school, which is the subject matter of this website.
I do not see how you could construe these comments as something other than addressing "the thrust of the posted statements." The nature of force goes to the heart of the debate over unions, and therefore to the employment practices of Wal-Mart.
You, in contrast, have insisted on attacking me personally, concerning yourself with (a) my name, (b) my attitude, (c) my wit, (d) my coherence, etc.
Rather than blithely assert that my comments are "contemptible," I would ask that you offer a more complete argument to support your position and refute mine. When the owners of this site direct us to "post an intelligent and civil comment," I believe that means to discuss the issue using logic and reason rather than ad hominem attacks.
Published: January 26, 2006 9:02 AM
Buckwheat said;
"In the Homestead strike, the workers armed themselves after the Pinkertons opened fire, killing several of the strikers. They won the fight, too, by the way."
Not to heroicize paid police who shoot unarmed strikers, my point was that they illegally occupied the property of others, and should have been removed with all necessary and appropriate force. The company was completely within its rights to fire and toss them off its property. That they didn't do so effectively is their fault, but so what - it doesn't give striking workers the right to trespass on the property of others, No, it took federal legislation to do that.
Published: January 26, 2006 9:03 AM
From 'The True Line of Deliverance' from Auberon Herbert which I've been reading -
"Unionism essentially means the sacrifice of one section of the laborers to another section - it means the setting aside of the desires and the judgment of the individual for the sake of a common end; it means temptations to coerce; it means regulation, restriction, and centralization with all the evils that flow from these fatal methods"
and
"Centralization, coercion, and monopoly, always have been the advance guard of eventual failure and suffering, and always will be"
Published: January 26, 2006 10:59 AM
Actually, this is a good question, and probably a source of misunderstanding between people of different political persuasions. What is coercion? Hitting somebody over the head with a blackjack is coercion. Slashing somebody's car tires is coercion. Pointing a gun or knife at somebody and demanding their wallet is not coercion, but the threat of coercion--the robber threatens to do harm if you do not do as they say. Is Wal-Mart's actions with their suppliers coercion? What does Wal-Mart threaten to do if a supplier doesn't agree? Simply not doing business with them is not coercion or even the threat of coercion--that's simply the nature of voluntary trade. Both parties have to agree to the terms of the trade, or it's no deal. That Wal-Mart has rather high demands and suppliers are still willing to agree with them may be an indication of their buying power, but not an indication of coercion.
To say that 'not agreeing to trade' is synonymous with coercion sounds like so much doublespeak to me.
Published: January 26, 2006 1:21 PM
Mr. Gaskell -
Unionism & totalitarianism are rivals was a serious comment? My statements were abused & twisted propaganda? That's not personal? That's not an attack on my reasoning? If that is how you characterize historical facts, how should one evaluate your other statements? Blithely? You have yet to refute the content of one statement I made - since they're irrefutable, I understand that - and have chosen instead to indulge your fine talent for taking comments out of context to make your, points? Generally, an inability to respond effectively to the intellectual content in a debate, characterized by personal attacks or commentary just like yours, is widely considered to be intellectually contemptible. It is an attack on the messenger, not the message. The thrust of my arguments are that unions have been good for this country, working people are not the enemy, and we better stand together against the fascist corporatists and their political lackeys since we are natural allies. Now what is your response to that?
For all you libs, though I haven't previously made this point since it is so obvious, and I assumed you were all masters of the obvious, no one is forced to join a union, just as no one is forced to shop at WalMart. They can go elsewhere to work, quite in keeping with the lib philosophy.
Published: January 26, 2006 2:20 PM
Er, the company is forced to 'join' the union. And since 'going union' is by democratic vote, those workers who vote against it are being forced to either join the union or switch jobs. It's one thing for an employee and employer to make an agreement, it's another thing entirely for a third party to make an agreement against the will of one or both of the interested parties.
Published: January 26, 2006 3:03 PM
Unionism & totalitarianism are rivals was a serious comment?
Yes.
They are rivals in much the same way that the Nazis and the Communists were rivals during the 1930s in Germany and elsewhere. Rivals both seek to control the same instruments of power. The totalitarian method is to transfer ownership of businesses and real property to the State. Unions accomplish the same result by leaving the nominal ownership of a company in the hands of others, some of the time, but obtain control over the essential functions of the owners, such as employment costs, hiring and firing, promotions, job assignments, facility openings and closings, introduction of new technologies, etc.
The true antithesis to both of these systems is one in which all relationships are governed by a total prohibition of violence and coercion, respect for property, and the voluntary ordering of commercial relationships (i.e., a system of freedom and enforcement of contract).
So, the true opposite of BOTH unionism, totalitarianism (and all other forms of collectivized property) is the free market, where property and contract rights are enforced for everyone.
My statements were abused & twisted propaganda? That's not personal? That's not an attack on my reasoning?
The misuse of terms to disguise the true nature of what they purport to describe is an essential ingredient of propaganda. To call unions merely a form of "organizing" is to hide what the essence of unionism is -- a state-enforced artificial barrier to entry to the employment of non-members. This one element is a union's reason for being. It is the feature that enables everything they do. "Organize" fails to disclose what unions really are -- a mechanism of exclusion.
No, that is not personal. That is an analysis of the meaning of a word.
An attack on your reasoning (or anyone else') is entirely valid. It is what debating is.
The thrust of my arguments are that unions have been good for this country, working people are not the enemy, and we better stand together against the fascist corporatists and their political lackeys since we are natural allies. Now what is your response to that?
My response is that unions have been bad for every country in which they have ever been implemented, including this one. They artificially raise the cost of the product that is manufactured, render the unionized companies unable to deal effectively with fluctuations of prices of their products in the market, and slow down the introduction of new technologies, particularly those that would make workers more productive (for fear that fewer workers would be needed).
Over the long term, these factors destroy whole industries, as they have bankrupted many airlines and are in the process of destroying the U.S. automotive industry.
Of course "working people" are not "the enemy." That's a straw man argument.
The best way to stand against corporatists and their political lackeys is to reveal the true nature of the long-term, broad-based economic harm their policies cause, and the only way to do that is to teach as many people as possible the fundamental principle of free-market economics.
We cannot do that if we do not also point out the harm caused by every other form of collectivist infringement on economic liberty. It takes many forms. Corporatism, democratic socialism, communism, fascism, etc. are all basically the same thing, each with a slightly different style and focus, largely differentiated by their rhetoric than by their methods.
Published: January 26, 2006 3:16 PM
George, Buckwheat and other die-hard trade unionists aren't open to reason when it comes to their position, especially from a systematic, principled position like the libertarian one. Indeed, they are often very sympathetic to certain of our arguments that either tend to bolster their position, or else where they have no dog in the fight. But they oppose anything that undermines the special privileges government grants to unions, masking their hypocrisy and lack of principle by appealing to the "working man" Tell me Buckwheat - how many of us here do you think aren't "working"?
Published: January 26, 2006 3:58 PM
If a company or a corporation or any entity with employees forms a contract with a union and designates that union as the exclusive negotiator for its employees, how is that coerion on the part of the union? Of course, the union prefers to represent every employee and many companies prefer to negotiate with one unit rather than with every single employee. Unionism is not collectivism, nor is it an attempt to "control the instruments of power," but organization to obtain increased benefit to its dues-paying members - it doesn't seek to control the government, or to impose a particular philosophy on anyone. There are no political tests to join unions. It is not government coerced, either, unless you feel compliance with the civil law is government coercion. If anything, the government has done everything possible to destroy the unions bargaining power by allowing courts to set aside these valid contracts when the company decides it is no longer in their interest, or they want to eliminate pensions, etc.
The notion that unions have been bad for every country is simple hyperbole and not supported by the facts. That misrepresentation qualifies as bizarre & twisted anti-union propaganda. The most highly organized countries, basically western Europe and Japan, have standards of living equal to or higher than this country, not to mention outstanding craftsmanship across the board. But, then, perhaps it's the lib view that the powerless, penniless peon has the same negotiating strength as Whatchamacallit, Inc. It certainly seems to be the lib view that "Arbeit Macht Frei," and the benefits to each contracting party are always equal. That argument, the result of the rigid lib free market fantasy that all parties are equal, is,in my view, the moral equivalent to that of the bank robber claiming the money he stole was handed over voluntarily. Unequally constituted, unfairly formed contracts are exploitation by the stronger party of the weaker, by their nature, are intended to be, and are highly coercive, as argued by others, above.
The reason companies fail is due more to the poor management than to the poor workers. Or, rising costs of real estate or leases. Leadership is basically non-existent in today's businesses world, which is why the Abramoffs are so necessary to their