Comments (38)

• jim

  Why labor day?

  1. Because our hard work has produced the capital. Capital is meaningless without someone to make use of it.

  2. I would rather celebrate humanity than inanimate objects.

  Don't let the Austrian economics cause you to forget what it means to be human. Too many on this blog have, in my opinion.

  I don't like the idea of government sanctioned anything. Labor, however, should be celebrated along with it's fruits.

  Furthermore, to all of the union bashers, I agree that they have caused a lot of harm in the last century. They have also done good. Remember that GDP growth does not equal utility and progress. In the free market, unions can and will exist. To keep them from forming would be a most authoritarian thing to do. So would publicly supporting them.

  Published: April 30, 2007 10:52 PM

• Mark Brabson

  Austrians are not against unions, per se. What we oppose is the granting of monopoly bargaining power to unions.

  I do not oppose the right of a group of workers to VOLUNTARILY join together and form a bargaining unit and attempt to bargain collectively. There is a right to free association and forming a union falls under that right. In a free society, workers would be free to form unions and attempt to bargain collectively and employers would be free to bargain with such union or to REFRAIN from bargaining with such union. Moreover, if a company voluntarily bargained with a union and signed a contract, such contract would only emcompass such workers as voluntarily joined the union. Other workers would be free to join that union and enjoy the benefits of that contract or to refrain from joining the union and instead bargain directly with the employer. Also, in a free society, employers and employees would enjoy free association rights in the form of at will employment.

  To this end, the Wagner Act and all its successive acts and amendments should be immediately repealed. All state right to work laws would simply become moot and meaningless at that point. Davis-Bacon should also be repealed. If employees wish to unionize, first they would form their association, representing ONLY those employees who voluntarily joined the association. The association would then contact the company and it would be up to the company to either bargain with the union or decline to bargain with the union. The union could of course strike, but the employer, in a libertarian world, would have an unquestioned right to discharge or permanently replace such workers. If the company and union did reach a bargaining agreement, it would not effect such workers who choose to stay out of the bargaining unit. Those workers would simply bargain directly with the employer.

  As for public employees. They could, of course, form a union, but I would forbid government from recognizing, bargaining or contracting with any union. Also, if they strike or engage in any work slowdown, they should go out the door with a permanent ban on public employment. Public employees and bureacrats are non productive tax consumers and should not be allowed to extort more tax money than they already get.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:05 AM

• Mark Brabson

  jim:

  Also. Remember, without accumulated capital, American workers would still be working 12 hour days for low pay. It is the accumulation of capital which increases the productivity of labor which in turn leads to shorter hours and better pay. If anything, labor needs to be thanking capital for their good standard of living they have today.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:07 AM

• Kevin Carson

  On the other hand, why not "laborism" instead of "capitalism"? If you really regard labor and capital as simply co-equal factors of production, it's a bit odd to name a free market economic system after a particular factor of production.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:42 AM

• TLWP Sam

  Actually M. Brabson, strictly speaking unions were initially ruled illegal. They were illegal inasmuchas the employer is supposed to have the final say. A worker can make suggestions and try to bargain but not intimidate nor threaten an employer. Or as it has many-a-times mentioned here before if a worker finds the conditions unfair or unacceptable then they leave. However if you consider what a trade union does, which is to say force employers for better conditions or else, force politicians to make worker-friendly/anti-employer laws or else, engage in strikes that disrupt production, etc., then I'm sure many would agree such behaviour would be unacceptable because it's using force to get what one wants. Very anti-Libertarian indeed. Similarly strike-breakers would be traditionally acceptable to forcefully remove strikers and allow safe for replacement workers as it amounts to reliation for the damage from strikers through their vandalism or lost production to employers. Hence all-in-all the right for workers to form unions under proper laissez-faire is an extremely spurious one.

  Published: May 1, 2007 1:21 AM

• Fleeced

  Since we have Labour Day, why not Employer Day, where we celebrate the contribution made by businesses to peoples lives?

  On Labour Day, workers have a day off work with full pay (in Australia, anyway). It seems fitting therefore, that on Employer Day, everybody does a full days work with no pay whatsoever. Employees can opt to take the day off, but can then be charged "undertime" by the employer.

  Published: May 1, 2007 4:54 AM

• evden eve nakliye

  thank you very very nıce thank you very very much...

  Published: May 1, 2007 6:48 AM

• Björn Lundahl

  Yes it is the leftist’s day in Sweden today. But the amounts of demonstrators are getting fewer and fewer for every year. Socialism is in a downward spiral.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CSUYosM-rY

  In recent years, though, some younger leftist’s demonstrators have entered the scene with the slogan “Reclaim the City”. They are occupying parts of the city and making violence. Please note that this does not represent ordinary folk’s demonstrations during the First of May. Ordinary folks reject these kinds of violent actions!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyPFL_cu_LQ

  Violent people from all over Europe gathered and made violence in Gothenburg during the EU summit in 2001. The police did not anticipate this and did not therefore mobilize enough forces from other Swedish cities. Also these “demonstrators” were leftists.

  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPjMs4VFa9g&mode=related&search=

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPnQUcRqepQ&mode=related&search=
  

  Wikipedia:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_during_the_EU_summit_in_Gothenburg_2001

  
  Björn Lundahl
  Göteborg, Sweden

  
  

  Published: May 1, 2007 7:10 AM

• George Gaskell

  Capital is meaningless without someone to make use of it.

  You have it exactly backwards.

  Labor does not create value. Labor does not represent value. Labor does not approximate value. These are all Marxist fallacies.

  When a laborer makes a valuable object, the value of that object is created when it satisfies someone's want or need. Objects have no intrinsic value.

  Therefore, the value of a manufactured object is created by the decision-making process used to produce the object. The value lies in identifying a want or need, and the marshaling of the resources to satisfy that want or need. This is what capital does.

  In daily life, the person who performs the physical labor may also be the same person who decides what good or service to create, markets it, marshals the resources to produce it. The capitalist and the laborer can be the same person. A lot of self-employed people run small businesses this way. They perform the roles of both capitalist and laborer.

  But regardless of who performs the entrepreneurial or the laboring functions (or if they are performed by the same person), the creation of value lies in the guidance of the labor toward valuable ends, not in the labor itself.

  
  I would rather celebrate humanity than inanimate objects.

  Capital is more than an inanimate object. It is the unconsumed surplus of prior valuable economic productivity. It is savings.

  Profit, savings and capital should be celebrated. By definition, they improve the lives of everyone.

  Published: May 1, 2007 9:17 AM

• RogerM

  Unionists and free marketeers don't understand each other and won't until each comes to grips with their own assumptions and the assumptions of the other, as well as differing definitions. Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions", is the best book on that subject, actually the only one I've seen. He labels the visions constrained (free market) and unconstrained (union/socialist), and write this:

  "The constrained vision sees market economies as responsive to systemic forces--the interaction of innumerable individual choices and performances--rather than to deliberate power shaping the ultimate outcome to suit particular individuals or organized decision makers...The unconstrained vision argues that this is not how the economy operates, that it is currently obeying the power of particular interest and should therefore be made in future to obey the power of the public interest...The locus of discretion is in one case scattered among millions, in the other concentrated in a few large corporate hands, exercised by corporate managements in an 'impregnable position'...Each dismisses the other's vision as a myth."

  Sowell calls free marketeers "constrained" because in general we believe that man's nature is both good and bad can't be changed. Socialists are "unconstrained" because they believe that mankind can be perfected.

  Unionists don't believe that markets work the way free marketeers describe, and we have a long way to go to convince them.

  Published: May 1, 2007 10:04 AM

• TLWP Sam

  But really, seriously, aren't trade unions not free-markets entities? Aren't they really Socialist groups designed to improve some people's lot of life by restricting someone else's lot? And therefore have no place in a laissez-faire economy?

  Published: May 1, 2007 10:21 AM

• George Gaskell

  Yes, unions are cartels. They exist by violently excluding potential competitors in the labor market.

  They exist because they are granted the special governmental privilege of preventing an employer and a potential employee from forming a mutually voluntary employment agreement. This violates their natural right to free association.

  Without this special, violent privilege, unions collapse as soon as a non-union competitor enters the market and sells at a lower price.

  Any voluntary association that does not enjoy this special privilege of exclusion is not a true union.

  Published: May 1, 2007 11:01 AM

• Mark Brabson

  TLWP:

  I think that union's existance are justified by a general right to freedom of association. Neither the state, nor the employer can infringe on this right, although I do wholeheartedly agree that an employer can outright ban union activities on his private property. If the workers go off property an organize, that is their right.

  On the other side of the coin. If the employer doesn't want to deal with unions, he can tell the employees flat out that he will not bargain with them and that his current employment terms are non negotiable. At that point, either the employees can live with it, or they can attempt to withhold labor, i.e. strike.

  Certainly, employee's can withhold labor if they wish, as long as they stay off the employer's property, don't otherwise interfere with his business and don't harass, threaten or intimidate strike breakers or other employee's. I do oppose work slowdowns and sickouts, which are essentially thefts of time and benefits, respectively, from the employer.

  The bottom line. Without the wide array of government labor laws to empower them, most unions would collapse and in a truly free market economy, unions would be few and far between and very few would actually be able to obtain a contract with a company. Most industries would be in the happy position of being union free.

  As you have probably inferred by now, I am a huge opponent of unions. However, we cannot ignore the right to free association, however damaging unions are.

  Published: May 1, 2007 11:05 AM

• Micha Ghertner

  "Any voluntary association that does not enjoy this special privilege of exclusion is not a true union."

  No true Scotsman.

  Paging Kevin Carson, Vulgar Libertarianism on isle 3.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:18 PM

• George Gaskell

  "if a statement in the 'no true Scotsman' form is not intended as an empirical argument, but as the conclusion to an argument about definition, then it is not a fallacy"

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:20 PM

• Micha Ghertner

  And you are just redifining a word to suite your personal ideological biases when that word already has a generally accepted definition, even among libertarians. We could (and many socialists do) just as easily redefine terms like "free market", "laissez faire", "free trade", "capitalism", and "private property" to simply refer to the present corporatist system of welfare statism. And we would be just as mistaken and misleading as those who define unions as necessarily violent or statist.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:38 PM

• George Gaskell

  I am trying to express, through language, the fundamental economic difference between (a) an organization that forcibly excludes non-member competitors from entering a market, and (b) an organization that confines its activities to arranging the rights and responsibilities of its own members, while interacting with non-members on a voluntary basis.

  In case it is not obvious from my use of language in this manner, this distinction is crucial to my ideology.

  These two types of organizations, which differ in their purposes as well as their functions, are as fundamentally different from one another as are, for example, (a) a band of Vikings and (b) a comedy troupe.

  They are so different from one another, they deserve different names. Accordingly, I will call the first type a "union," and the second type an "association" of some kind.

  I do not care what you think the "generally accepted definitions" are.

  Published: May 1, 2007 12:58 PM

• Micha Ghertner

  I do not care what you think the "generally accepted definitions" are.

  Shorter George Gaskell: I make stuff up as I go along, damn the evidence.

  (Of course, this is not to deny that the distinction you propose is not legitimate and important. It is. It's just that "union" is a morally neutral term, which is used to describe both peaceful and rights-violating organizations, just as the terms "firm" or "business" are morally neutrally terms which can be used to describe both peaceful and rights-violating organizations.)

  Published: May 1, 2007 1:20 PM

• George Gaskell

  Evidence?

  Definitions (and language generally) are not a matter of evidence.

  Evidence is something that is used to prove (or disprove) whether a particular historical fact occurred (or did not occur).

  Definitions, in contrast, are a matter of abstraction and interpretation.

  You should be more precise with your use of the English language.

  Incidentally, words like "business" are not morally neutral, even in the sense of "morally neutral" as you are apparently using it. "Business" may not be significant to the moral questions that you choose to ask, or the moral issues that concern you, but it has a moral dimension in other contexts. It describes an environment in which there are a wide range of practices are considered morally acceptable, and others that are not. As the sports agent Bob Sugar said in Jerry Maguire, "It's not show friends, it's show business," implying a range of assumptions about the moral framework in which they were operating.

  Please do not use the "Shorter _______" format with me. It is juvenile. What I actually say is readily apparent to all.

  Published: May 1, 2007 1:31 PM

• Anthony Gregory

  "'Any voluntary association that does not enjoy this special privilege of exclusion is not a true union.'

  "No true Scotsman.

  "Paging Kevin Carson, Vulgar Libertarianism on isle 3."

  But isn't this sort of what the anti-capitalist free marketers say about capitalism? That no voluntary market that does not rely on state privilege should be referred to as capitalist?
  

  Published: May 1, 2007 2:46 PM

• George Gaskell

  But isn't this sort of what the anti-capitalist free marketers say about capitalism? That no voluntary market that does not rely on state privilege should be referred to as capitalist?

  Perhaps they say that.

  The term 'capitalist' was originally used to criticize the practice of the employer skimming the surplus value off of the value of the worker's labor. These 19th century socialists were not primarily concerned with whether the arrangement was voluntary or not, since they viewed it as unjust either way.

  Debates are not typically framed in this way any more (unless you are debating a hard-core Marxist, of course). As a result, any debate about the significance of voluntarism as it exists in a capitalist economy necessarily requires some amount of shifting of the original meanings of terms. Such shifts are largely unavoidable, actually.

  All I know is that I have no problem calling a voluntary market-based economy that does not rely on state privilege "capitalist." You can call it a free market or a voluntary economy or anarchism. The label is less important than the characteristics that the label is intended to convey.

  Most rational debates (particularly those with opponents) are improved when they begin with a discussion over the definitions of terms.

  In contrast, a fight over who gets to own the preferred definition of a key term is more a matter of rhetoric and propaganda.

  Published: May 1, 2007 3:05 PM

• Micha Ghertner

  Why do you have a with problem calling a voluntary organization of workers that does not rely on state privilege a "union"?

  What benefit is it to you or your cause to redifine a word and use it in a way that no one else seems to, including those who share your political views? Is it really rhetoric and propaganda to insist that we try to be as clear and straightforward as possible with our language? Or is it rhetoric and propaganda to insist on the opposite, and be confusing and misleading for the sake of...what, exactly?

  Published: May 1, 2007 4:32 PM

• Micha Ghertner

  Anthony,

  It is similar, although one difference is that the definition of capitalism is contested by a group significantly larger than one and has been contested historically for a significant period of time. I think this dispute is unfortunate, because it leads to miscommunication and confusion, and time wasted debating definitions rather than substantive ideas.

  Unions, on the other hand, don't seem to be a contested term yet, even among libertarians, and I see no reason why we should want it to become one. Why commit the same confusion that riles us so much when it is our ox being gored?

  Published: May 1, 2007 4:39 PM

• Mark Brabson

  I don't think it is necessary at all to quibble over the defination of a union.

  For the record, I simply use it as a catch all for any association formed for the purpose of collective bargaining.

  And anyhow, our energy should not be focused on combatting the unions anyhow. Rather, it should be focused on our fundamental enemy, the State.

  Unions would not have their present power and influence without the assistance and enabling legislation of the state, and the explicit delegation of the state's coercive power.

  Our energy should be focused on the elimination of the Wagner Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. Deprived of their delegated coercive powers, unions would quickly wither on the vine. It is the State that has created the present sorry situation, not the unions themselves.

  Published: May 1, 2007 8:09 PM

• Geech

  'Why do you have a with problem calling a voluntary organization of workers that does not rely on state privilege a "union"?'

  I believe he's made it pretty clear that the difference in terms is to distinguish between coercive and voluntary collective bargaining associations. I don't think he's deliberately obfuscating, and I frankly don't find the distinction all that confusing anyway.

  Published: May 1, 2007 9:56 PM

• George Gaskell

  I think this dispute is unfortunate

  Really? I find the spontaneous use of pejoratives such as "vulgar" unfortunate.

  Hmmm. I guess we're at an impasse, then.

  
  Why do you have a with problem calling a voluntary organization of workers that does not rely on state privilege a "union"? What benefit is it to you or your cause to redifine a word and use it in a way that no one else seems to, including those who share your political views? Is it really rhetoric and propaganda to insist that we try to be as clear and straightforward as possible with our language?

  To repeat myself: I am trying to express, through language, the fundamental economic difference between (a) an organization that forcibly excludes non-member competitors from entering a market, and (b) an organization that confines its activities to arranging the rights and responsibilities of its own members, while interacting with non-members on a voluntary basis.

  These two types of organizations are so different from one another that they deserve different names. Accordingly, I will call the first type a "union," and the second type an "association" of some kind.

  (Actually, I will call the first type a "labor union," to distinguish them from all the other forms of unions out there in the world. I would have thought that the "labor" was implied, but after your whole thing about how "'union' is a morally neutral term," I've decided that I need to be more explicit with you.)

  The benefit of doing so: clarity , to-wit: emphasis of the crucial economic difference between these two modes of organization. The failure to make this distinction, via the careful selection of one's terms, is a failure to be as "clear and straightforward as possible with our language."

  Published: May 1, 2007 10:21 PM

• Micha Ghertner

  I believe he's made it pretty clear that the difference in terms is to distinguish between coercive and voluntary collective bargaining associations.

  Right, but everyone other George Gaskell already uses the term union to refer to both coercive and voluntary collective bargaining associations, in the same way that everyone uses the term firm to refer to both coercive and voluntary businesses. So why deliberately choose a term and use it in a way different than the commonly accepted definition that will clearly confuse the issue? Why not make up a new term, or simply refer to coercive unions and voluntary unions as so?

  Published: May 2, 2007 2:03 AM

• Micha Ghertner

  These two types of organizations are so different from one another that they deserve different names. Accordingly, I will call the first type a "union," and the second type an "association" of some kind.

  I agree with your first sentence; the distinction is an important one. But my objection is to your obviously biased decision to use the term union (or labor union, the same problem remains) to refer to and only to coercive organizations. My question is: Why choose a word that already has a commonly accepted definition and use it in a different and misleading way to make this distinction? What purpose does this serve other than confusion?

  Published: May 2, 2007 2:10 AM

• R. W. Wright

  Right, but everyone other George Gaskell already uses the term union to refer to both coercive and voluntary collective bargaining associations...

  Are there any non-coercive unions?

  Just asking.

  Published: May 2, 2007 4:51 AM

• rtr

  R. W. Wright: "Are there any non-coercive unions?

  Just asking."

  Yeah, they're called college and university "degrees".

  Published: May 2, 2007 8:18 AM

• George Gaskell

  But my objection is to your obviously biased decision to use the term union (or labor union, the same problem remains) to refer to and only to coercive organizations.

  Is "biased" supposed to be some kind of criticism?

  Moreover, do you actually expect anyone here to blindly accept your pretense of objectivity and neutrality? (You are not especially good at it, by the way.)

  Bias is not a problem; dishonesty is a problem. Problems of discourse arise when people hide their biases.

  A pretense of neutrality and objectivity is as dishonest as any other form of hidden bias. This is true regardless of whether one is engaged in a calculated deception or mere self-delusion.

  I am an advocate for free markets. I therefore choose terms and arguments that support my positions. This does not confuse the issue. It clarifies it.

  Labor unions are inherently coercive. They have been so from their early history. To say otherwise is a lie.

  I don't care what you think the prevailing meaning of the term is. The prevailing meaning of any term is not for you to decide, not something you can remotely control, and anything you have to say on the subject is a product of your own narrow experience.

  What you apparently fail to grasp is that the meaning of the term 'labor union,' as YOU choose to use it, is fueled by 100 years of socialist lies. There is no law of man or nature that says that we have to accept these lies at face value.

  Furthermore, unless you can produce a survey of every English speaker on the face of planet Earth, your statement that "everyone other George Gaskell already uses the term union to refer to both coercive and voluntary collective bargaining associations" is a lie. It also reflects your bias on the subject.

  
  Are there any non-coercive unions?

  No. There is also no such thing as "self-government." There is also no such thing as "self-theft" nor "self-slavery."

  Labor unions, from the very beginning of the American labor movement, have depended on the exclusion of potential competitors. The Order of the Knights of St Crispin, founded in 1867, called these potential competitors "green hands" and sought to have them excluded. The more successful and long-lasting labor unions are the ones that accomplished this objective.

  It is in the nature of socialists to try to hide this essential feature of labor unions, since it offends common decency. So, they try to cover it up with INHERENTLY DECEPTIVE terms such as "being better organized" or "collective bargaining." Being "organized" is of course a euphemism for violence or the threat of violence.

  There is no such thing as "collective bargaining." "Bargaining" makes it sound like an ordinary contract. And to the extent that an agreement between employers and employees is genuine contract, then it can just be called a "contract" just like any other contract. People have the natural right to bind THEMSELVES to future conduct via contracts.

  They do not, however, have the right to bind others, which is what the "collective" part of a "collective bargaining agreement" actually does.

  Published: May 2, 2007 8:49 AM

• Dave

  In case anybody is interested, Kevin Carson has a very interesting article regarding unions: The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective.

  I don't quite agree with everything he says; nonethless, as I just stated, it is very interesting and worth reading.
  

  Published: May 6, 2007 12:47 AM

• Dave

  What happened? I got the link to work in the preview, but not in the actual post. Why?

  I'll try again:
  The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective

  Published: May 6, 2007 12:52 AM

• Dave

  Again, it worked in the preview but not the actual post. Suggestions anybody?

  Thanks,

  Dave

  Published: May 6, 2007 12:55 AM

• R. W. Wright

  Yeah, they're called college and university "degrees".

  An interesting thought, but I don't think those groups could be said to function very much like unions. After all, each degree holder is free to work for the pay he chooses, and generally has no support from other holders of the same degree.

  Published: May 6, 2007 11:26 AM

• Sam

  Hi Dave,

  Lets see if I can get the link to work

  The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective
  

  Published: May 6, 2007 4:33 PM

• Bob

  Hi Dave,

  I just used a standard HTML tag, and it worked. Is that what you did, also?

  By the way, I agree the above link is well worth reading!

  Published: May 6, 2007 4:36 PM

• Bob

  Huh! Even though it showed up as a link, when I click on it, it brought up a 404 (Page Not Found) error.

  So here is the link so anybody who is interested can cut and paste:

  http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/04/media-print-projection-embossed-body.html

  Published: May 6, 2007 4:43 PM