Comments (24)

• Jorge

  I can't see why a strike shouldn't be regarded as a breach of contract. The only way a concerted effort to get better salaries could be understood in terms of a free society would be by means of a unified decision to quit the job. This would mean that if the employer wants their workers to remain in the company he would have to come to terms with them; otherwise he should also be free to hire other employees.
  But if those who want to go on strike don't quit their jobs they are resorting to coercive means. It would be the same if the employers decided to retain part of their workers' wages in order to make them work more hours.
  Thank you, forgive my English, my mother tongue is Spanish.
  Jorge

  
  

  Published: November 19, 2009 12:20 PM

• John Deal

  So if I have an at-will contract and I decide not to work and convince my co-workers to stop working, our employer can decide to pay us more or hire new people and train them in our positions. It seems then that refusal to work is simply a market mechanism that allows for proper allocation of capital.
  Now if I have a contract that says I will work for a given time with no exceptions and then I decide not to work and the employer has to hire someone else and train them, the employer should have his property right defended and restored.
  Maybe the author goes into more detail but I can't see any problem with that. If Dr Anderson can elaborate perhaps this book would be worth a read but otherwise I don't see any reason to read it.

  Published: November 19, 2009 3:36 PM

• Jorge

  John Deal,
  Yes, you are right. It depends on the kind of contract. Since there are some contracts with their parties agreeing on working and paying for a specified period of time, it should be fulfilled. If not, there should be some clauses stating that the damaged party's property has to be restored.
  Perhaps the book is plenty of historical facts, in that sense it could be worthwhile reading it.

  Published: November 19, 2009 4:33 PM

• Ben

  Unless you want to enforce self-slavery contracts it seems to me that anyone should be able to stop working for their employer when they wish to (and risk being fired or being liable for damages as a result). Wouldn't this be tantamount to a decision to "enjoy leisure instead of pecuniary remuneration", in Hutt's words?

  If each employee is allowed to do this individually, then surely they should be able to organise with other employees to all do so at the same time. It is not at all clear from the article why a "concerted" or "simultaneous" exercise of this action is any less legitimate than a single individual's refusal to work for an employer.

  Perhaps Hutt has some good argument for this in his book, but it is not at all clear from the article what it is. Prof Anderson tells us that "[t]he Hutt argument against the mass withdrawal of all workers is convincing", but he doesn't tell us what the argument is!

  Published: November 19, 2009 5:28 PM

• Brainpolice

  Thumbs up for Ben.

  Published: November 19, 2009 8:33 PM

• ?

  "But this right cannot be appealed to as justification for the concerted or the simultaneous refusal of a group of persons to continue to work in an industry, in a firm, or in a key position in an industry or firm."

  That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

  Published: November 19, 2009 8:46 PM

• Kevin Carson

  I recall an argument by Brad Spangler in the comment thread to a similar piece, arguing that the threat of strike was part of the price discovery process by which the labor market works. So to treat the actions of a large number of sellers of labor as something distinct from, or superfluous to, the "market," is incoherent.

  I wonder how Anderson would respond to a similar argument that the exertion of concerted market power by Wal-Mart to lower supplier prices was just a distortion of the natural market price?

  The employee rents attendant on finding and training replacement workers are part of the market environment in which labor prices are set. And the threat of strike can be one means by which the market price discovery process determines just how much the workers' human capital is worth to the employer.

  And Jorge: not only are the vast majority of American workers at-will, proponents of right-to-work laws see this as a feature rather than a bug. Here in right-to-work Arkansas, every employee policy manual I've ever received included a disclaimer along the lines of "Nothing in this manual should be construed as creating contractual obligations or actionable rights." The thing about an employment contract is, it creates rights and expectations on BOTH SIDES. And this is something most employers avoid like the plauge. On the other hand, avoiding all legal responsibilities and accountability to the worker carries with it the similar lack of obligation on the worker's part. You simply can't have it both ways.

  Published: November 20, 2009 12:29 PM

• O. Yeah

  "You simply can't have it both ways."

  Sure you can. If you get the government to protect you from competition through various licensing and cartelization schemes, thus reducing the number of players permitted in the market and thus reducing the employment opportunities, a business can hold their employees over a barrel as much as they want, especially in a recession. They're damn lucky just to have a job.

  Where else you gonna go, buddy?

  Published: November 20, 2009 5:27 PM

• Chris Lentil

  Unions, no matter what form, can do no right. Everything they do is always force against the business owner.

  Published: November 21, 2009 5:12 PM

• Shay

  Chris, an individual employee offering his employer the choice of higher pay or resignation is not using force. Several individual employees doing the same is also not force. And several employees organizing together doing the same is also not force. But perhaps you're referring to the things outside this that unions do.
  

  Published: November 21, 2009 6:03 PM

• Chris Lentil

  Shay,
  I was being sarcastic. A number of Mises.org pieces, however, seem to share that exact sentiment.

  Published: November 21, 2009 6:39 PM

• Unions are Great

  And you could just as easily say that companies use their market power to force wages down (by taking advantage of the difficulty in starting a new company) and that unions restore the balance.

  Published: November 21, 2009 6:48 PM

• Unions are Great

  "I can't see why a strike shouldn't be regarded as a breach of contract."

  If there's no contract, then there's no breach. But we'll sign a contract that says we can't strike if you pay everyone $1 more per hour.

  Published: November 21, 2009 6:55 PM

• Shay

  Indeed, Unions are Great, sellers in any market attempt to get the highest price possible, and buyers attempt to get the lowest price possible. It's this tug-of-war that makes the free market work in spite of each participant being self-interested. It keeps things in check and the resulting prices things trade at provide valuable information to producers and buyers as to the state of the market, helping them make good decisions as to their future actions. I can't help but think of human limbs, with opposing muscle groups that result in fine control over movement.
  

  Published: November 21, 2009 8:15 PM

• Double Standard

  "To forbid strikes and boycotts would not be to restrain any basic human right."

  To forbid mass layoffs and firings would not be to restrain any basic human right.

  Published: November 21, 2009 8:25 PM

• Neocons

  Get the neocons out of the libertarian movement, then you'll get somewhere. These people are only "libertarians" because they aren't in charge any more. "Libertarians" when the other side is in charge, but "it's different now: we have to protect the country from terrorists and strikers" when they're in charge.

  Published: November 21, 2009 8:32 PM

• Double Standard

  "To forbid strikes and boycotts would not be to restrain any basic human right."

  Yes it would, it would restrain your right to your own body. It would restrain freedom of association (if I can convince other people to stop working without using force, you have no right to stop me). You have no right to force someone else to keep working. You have no right to force a group to keep working.

  Forbidding strikes and boycotts = CENTRAL PLANNING

  Published: November 21, 2009 8:43 PM

• Neocons

  "that such action can result only in a loss of welfare to the members of society"

  More collectivism from the neocons in libertarians' clothing.

  The union thing always exposes these neocon frauds. They're for "free markets" when everything goes their way, but "send in the National Guard" when people out-compete them.

  Published: November 21, 2009 8:50 PM

• Neocons

  "it presents an equally devastating argument for the superiority of the free market in the determination of the wage rates of labor."

  Threatening to strike is part of the price discovery process. It *is* the free market.

  Published: November 21, 2009 9:07 PM

• Neocons

  "Free market" means anyone is free to buy and sell anything with anyone else at any price they agree on. If a group decides that a buyer's bid isn't high enough, they are free not to sell. If a group of workers decides that an employer's bid isn't high enough, they are free not to sell their labor to that employer. That is the free market.

  Published: November 21, 2009 9:13 PM

• Neocons

  "unions have always inflicted injustices and disrupted production."

  CEOs have always inflicted injustices and disrupted production. The liquidation-threat system should be outlawed.

  Published: November 21, 2009 9:24 PM

• ABR

  A right to strike is fine, so long as the employer has the right to replace the strikers, barring any agreement to the contrary.

  Published: November 22, 2009 3:23 AM

• newson

  right of free association applies to everyone, business and labour. no union-coddling, no tolerance of violence, and no antitrust for business.
  the level playing field.
  

  Published: November 22, 2009 4:19 AM

• Jorge

  Well, let's agree on the fact that threatening to quit the job either individually or together with many co-workers is not coercion. But if they do want to hold their jobs, it's plainly a breach of contract and even though they are allowed under the law to do it, they should compensate the company owners.
  Besides, the fact is that in most strikes we don't see workers resigning, they just stop working. I imagine that apart from having no claim to part of their salaries (days that they didn't work due to the strike), employers should to some extent be compensated.

  Published: November 22, 2009 3:58 PM