Why does the right wing hate labor unions?

Economics Economics Questions
1

I don’t see why there’s so much propaganda in right wing literature and in libertarian thought about labor unions. Even Ludwig Von Mises detested labor unions- see the libertarian papers- he thought that the government had a legitimate power to break up labor unions.

I am asking more of a philosophical point of inquiry. It is true that labor unions in the past have made all kinds of crazy rules and stuff like that. But labor unions are a result of the market forces. They weren’t created by the new deal as right wingers claim. They were given more power by the new deal- but the radical new dealers, would have been fighting for labor rights with or without the new deal.

These people fight for the equality of workers. Lots of people in the past have been exploited by their employers, and, they’ve been discriminated against, and, not given everything they’ve rightfully earned. Perhaps there could be a use for labor unions- labor unions that have power could help people earn what they rightfully earn and they could help reduce market discrimination- without the use of government intervention.

I’ve put a lot of thought into this- and I see labor unions as a mechanism to promote equality, and, perhaps- just perhaps- if we allowed labor unions to have more power, than we could make more steps to reduce income inequality. There is no reason in my mind to be against labor unions… it’s not as if they’re a product of the government. Before the labor unions had power- they were constantly being put down by the government. They are a result of the people coming together- not a result of military force as many right wingers make them out to be.

2

Because their relationship with the State is ineviteable. The State uses them as pawns.

3

Labor unions try to drive out competition by the use of force. Union members historically have supported child labor laws to cut out cheap competition and min wage increases to have their employer cut back on unskilled labor (as a majority of unions are skilled labor only). I think the theme behind a labor union is contrary to the idea of private property. They imply ways of gaining power in the workplace in which they do not own.

4

unions are fine, as long as they do not use VIOLENCE. meaning if someone want not to join the union, or cross a picket line etc, why not? what right have they to stop him.

if unions are so great, why has membership [other than in govt, where workers have no choice but to join] been declining constantly?

also, let’s not forget, the goal of a union is NOT better pay for everyone. It is better pay FOR THEIR MEMBERS, plus NO JOBS FOR ANYONE ELSE.

why do you think the biggest advocates of minimum wage laws are unions? their members make way more tham minimum wage always? Its because minimum wage keeps everyone else less able ot compete

read up on the history of the teamsters. look for books with photos on the cover of the members hitting people with baseball bats

also look at the train wreck that is Detroit and of course GM and cleveland and the whole Rust Belt. all caused by the unions sucking the money out of their employers till they went bankrupt. which is exactly what is happening as we speak to the state of california, and who knows where else.

so Bottom line, unions are fine, as long they do not use their own or the govts coercion and violence [=laws] on others

5

“so Bottom line, unions are fine, as long they do not use their own or the govts coercion and violence [=laws] on others”

And ‘corporations’ are fine as long as they do not user their own governments coercion and violence (=laws) on others.

6

Unions are fine as long as they abstain from using threats of physical violence to enforce strikes or to punish scabs. Unfortunately, that’s usually the main purpose of the union.

7

Oh absolutely. Good to see you drawing the logical conclusions.

8

They imply ways of gaining power in the workplace in which they do not own.

So, in your view, people do not own their labor? That is all they do, imply ways of gaining power in the labor market.

You can say they support minimum wages to keep unskilled workers out of work. But that is just patently false. That MAY be a result of their actions, but is by no means WHY they support it. If the unions could get all workers unionized, they would.

And unions are on the decline because of the Law of Oligarchy. They became to powerful and disconnected from their members, becoming their own aristocracy in that sense. Union leaders go the same schools, same country clubs, same back-yard BBQ’s as the executives, they lunch with the lawyers, and dinner with the judges.

Unions hire their leaders, instead of recruiting them from amongst the ranks as they should. In short, they stopped being unions of workers, and became apologists of executives.

Right-wingers (conservatives, not neccesarily all an-caps) hate unions because, absent the state, they would be the only ones fighting to check the power of the capitalists (small c, as in owners of things).

9

OP, while i can’t vouch for other right-wingers why they have such animosity towards union workers, i’ll tell you what i personally feel about them from my own experience (and to those close to me).

First, let me preface this by saying that while I am very much anti-unions, i think they had their merits. Back in the day (early 1900s), construction work and manual labour was very dangerous, and hazardous to one’s health. Unions came and (at least this is what they claim) “forced” better work environment on the workers. This is fair enough - it sucks to have to work through the depression just to die from breathing coal dust all day a year later, so I’ll give them that.

however, unions morphed and evolved into much more than having a “let’s save their lives” attitude: it became about giving more money to their own people to be “fair” (a very subjective and politically charged word) and to give privileges to people who otherwise would not get any. Furthermore, it becomes much harder to fire unionized workers than non-unionized ones. As an example, about a year ago, there was a story about NYC school teachers that were disciplined and taken to a “rubber room” to await a hearing with a council. On average, it took about a year for this to happen, during which time they would literally sit in the room and do whatever they wanted (read a book, write a book, play chess…you name it) - all while getting paid full salary.

A couple of stories: I used to work for a top university and wanted to move a small desk to my “office”. My boss told me to stop because that was the handyman’s work and we could get in trouble if I ended up doing it. and they found out. Another example, i now study at a university in europe; early this year there was a protest and unions picketed around my university to prevent staff and faculty from entering. Of course, i went in anyways, but got harassed for “crossing the picket line” (of course, my friend and I just laughed and responded, but you get the idea).

My brother also deals with unionized workers at his work everyday and describes the headaches involved: you can’t hire unless demands X Y and Z are met (all in the sake of “fairness”); same with firing. Of course, fairness at this point means what they think is fair for them, not for the company, not for the people that could have been hired, not for the consumers who have to pay higher prices and reduced quality products. It’s all “me! me! me!”

In short, they have evolved into a powerful cartel effectively obtaining control over their own salaries, who can or cannot be hired and doing all around what is good for them. They focus more on increasing their share of the pie, rather than increasing the size of it - even if their end results are the same; they focus on more on saving their own jobs over allowing the company to lay off workers in order to survive. They have turned from life-savers to life-suckers

10

So, in your view, people do not own their labor? That is all they do, imply ways of gaining power in the labor market.

I clearly said workplace, not labor. There’s a difference in selling your labor, and trying to control (or change by force) the management and business decisions of a place in which they do not own. If I own a hardware store, and hire 2-3 people to work in that store, and they form a union, do they have a right to tell me who I can and can’t hire, or what wage I can and can’t pay to some form of skilled or unskilled labor?

You can say they support minimum wages to keep unskilled workers out of work. But that is just patently false. That MAY be a result of their actions, but is by no means WHY they support it. If the unions could get all workers unionized, they would.

I’m sure the type of people who support unions also support min wages because they may believe greedy capitalist are keeping the working man in a choke hold. Unions don’t want all workers unionized, that defeats the purpose. Unions are a special interest group, not the common interest.

And unions are on the decline because of the Law of Oligarchy.

They may be declining due to people realizing the real agenda behind unions. People may start to gain common sense in economics.

Right-wingers (conservatives, not neccesarily all an-caps) hate unions because, absent the state, they would be the only ones fighting to check the power of the capitalists (small c, as in owners of things).

Check the power of the capitalists? Do you mean disregarding property rights and trying to run someone else’s business?

11

I clearly said workplace, not labor

No matter where I go, I can only clearly be my own workplace. I may work in your factory, but my workplace is still established in the self. And you clearly said “market,” not workplace or labor.

If I own a hardware store, and hire 2-3 people to work in that store, and they form a union, do they have a right to tell me who I can and can’t hire, or what wage I can and can’t pay to some form of skilled or unskilled labor?

They can’t really force you to do anything. But if they feel you are treating them unjustly, they have every right to organize protests and boycotts of you both as a merchant and an employer.

I’m sure the type of people who support an-cap also support the elimination of taxes because they may believe greedy socialists are keeping the working man in a choke hold.

Way to generalize whole swaths of society, and totally reject Mises notion of rational action.

Ancaps don’t want all non-owners to have liberty, that defeats the purpose. An-caps are a special interest group, not the common interest.

Fallacious

They may be declining due to people realizing the real agenda behind unions.

And what “agenda” is that, wage rates that reflect the standard of living? You seem to have a biased view of what union members are all about. It is no different than the socialist claiming all entrepeneurs are evil and greedy. Baseless generalizations serve noone for the better.

People may start to gain common sense in economics.

Please define the word common. If most people believe something different than you, regardless of whether you are right or not, it seems to me they are the ones with the “common” sense. But alas, this is a straw-man. It means nothing in the larger picture.

Check the power of the capitalists?

I mean that a society where the owners of things have the final say is no more a libertarian society than any other plutocracy.

12

There’s a few posters here who seem to dislike the fact that unions fight for higher wages/salaries and specific working conditions. I’m kind of confused as to why they’re taking issue with that. Workers trade thier labor for pay. The employer is, in effect, the customer buying the labor and skills of the employee. Like any transaction, the customer is trying to get the lowest prices for the best quality, and the seller is trying to get the highest prices with the most profit. Unions, when they negotiate for higher wages or more favorable conditions, are simply doing what we should expect every individual worker to do. They’re just associating with eachother to increase thier leverage. Nothing wrong with that.

Now what IS wrong is if they use coercion to inhibit others from working the same positions if the union members decide they don’t want to work given the conditions offered by the employer. This includes legislation mandating union labor be used on specific projects, or intimidation to scare off or assault non-union workers (or even workers from another union). I’ve experienced this personally, it’s still a real world problem.

That said, I’m not against workers being mandated to join a union at a specific job. If the employer decides that he’d rather negotiate with his employees en masse rather than individually, that’s his or her perogative. In that case being in the union is part of the job conditions, just like thier wage rates or hours.

13

No matter where I go, I can only clearly be my own workplace. I may work in your factory, but my workplace is still established in the self.

Most people generally sign a contract abiding to a set of guidlines, etc., in the factory or place of work they are working in. I don’t see a problem if both parties uphold that contract, unless there is reason for the employer to fire the employee or the employee to leave. When you sign the contract you agree to the employer’s conditions, you don’t become an employer in the process.

And you clearly said “market,” not workplace or labor.

“Labor unions try to drive out competition by the use of force. Union members historically have supported child labor laws to cut out cheap competition and min wage increases to have their employer cut back on unskilled labor (as a majority of unions are skilled labor only). I think the theme behind a labor union is contrary to the idea of private property. They imply ways of gaining power in the workplace in which they do not own.” - Where do you see market and not workplace?

They can’t really force you to do anything. But if they feel you are treating them unjustly, they have every right to organize protests and boycotts of you both as a merchant and an employer.

Yeah, they can quit (boycott), or I can fire them and hire more productive employee’s. Regardless, if they don’t like the working conditions and the employer feels otherwise they can find work elsewhere (if peaceful relations have ended between the employers and employees). They are not coerced to work there.

Way to generalize whole swaths of society, and totally reject Mises notion of rational action.

You say on a thread that’s trying to “generalize” right-wingers.

Ancaps don’t want all non-owners to have liberty, that defeats the purpose. An-caps are a special interest group, not the common interest.

Great way to create a strawman and put words in my mouth. Keep up the good work on debunking your own fallacious examples.

And what “agenda” is that, wage rates that reflect the standard of living? You seem to have a biased view of what union members are all about. It is no different than the socialist claiming all entrepeneurs are evil and greedy. Baseless generalizations serve noone for the better.

What wage rates? Most unions are skilled labor and won’t accept unskilled labor, they don’t care about the workers under them in their area of industry, they are trying to make their own gain in defense of the “working man”. This isn’t a biased view, this is how unions work.

Please define the word common. If most people believe something different than you, regardless of whether you are right or not, it seems to me they are the ones with the “common” sense. But alas, this is a straw-man. It means nothing in the larger picture.

You should know what I mean by “common sense in economics” unless you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing (which is what it seems). This is a strawman? Like the one you’ve created about “ancaps”?

I mean that a society where the owners of things have the final say is no more a libertarian society than any other plutocracy.

Ah, so in a society in which the owners of private property have a final say with what is to be done with their property, that it is no more libertarian than a plutocracy? You’ve made an astonishing break through within the political philosophy of libertarianism.

14

Most people generally sign a contract abiding to a set of guidlines, etc., in the factory or place of work they are working in. I don’t see a problem if both parties uphold that contract, unless there is reason for the employer to fire the employee or the employee to leave. When you sign the contract you agree to the employer’s conditions, you don’t become an employer in the process.

I agree. It doesn’t stop the workers from forming an association amongst themselves to bargain with their employer for better working conditions.

And you clearly said “market,” not workplace or labor.

I was wrong, you did say workplace. My assertion above still stands. Workers have the right to collectively bargain. The owner doesn’t have to cooperate, but they have the right to peaceabley attempt to stop others from working there.

Yeah, they can quit (boycott), or I can fire them and hire more productive employee’s. Regardless, if they don’t like the working conditions and the employer feels otherwise they can find work elsewhere (if peaceful relations have ended between the employers and employees). They are not coerced to work there.

I agree. How does this stop them from trying to collectively bargain for better contracts, and peaceably trying to stop others from working/buying from the employer?.

You say on a thread that’s trying to “generalize” right-wingers.

haha. good point. It had to come up.

Great way to create a strawman and put words in my mouth. Keep up the good work on debunking your own fallacious examples.

I said the same thing myself. “fallacious” is what I said. As was the comment I was talking about..

What wage rates? Most unions are skilled labor and won’t accept unskilled labor, they don’t care about the workers under them in their area of industry, they are trying to make their own gain in defense of the “working man”. This isn’t a biased view, this is how unions work (emphasis mine).

haha. no, that’s not biased. Even if you had any evidence of this, you are talking about individal unions and their failures, not unionizing itself.

Ah, so in a society in which the owners of private property have a final say with what is to be done with their property, that it is no more libertarian than a plutocracy? You’ve made an astonishing break through within the political philosophy of libertarianism.

If you agree that entrepeneurs consolidate wealth (make money) than ultimate reliance on ownership of goods will be consolidated into the ones who own the most… so… a purchaseocracy? Idk, it still leads to one man making decisions for another. Private property, especially of the self is the foundation of any great society, but wealth creates power and power consolidates.

I don’t want this topic to deter to topics that are being discussed elsewhere and not the intent of the original post. Also I feel you are hostile to my assertion that, generally right wingers (which I should have said as “people opposed to unionization”) dislike unions because, absent that state they will be the one’s fighting the power of the capitalists (small c, owner’s of things). That’s not an attack on Capitalism, it’s an attack on consolidation of power in any exclusive form as being detrimental to civilized progress.

But ya, that is my view on why some people tend to feel people have no right to unionize.

15

If we can assume this is true for workers and their wages, we can also make the connection that it is true for whatever good or sevice is being sold. This being the case, employers have the right to hire whoever they wish at the lowest possible wage. Lower wages for workers equals lower costs and usually leads to lower prices for the sale of goods(or services). Unions artificially raise the price of wages, much the same way government intervention often raises the costs of doing business in many markets. In effect, unions act as a judge and jury for their members, in a completely self-serving way. It makes no difference to the union if the wages being asked for are ridiculously high to the point of making further production unfeasible. Unions in their very essence must try to push the envelope in a way that is self serving to the point of being bad for market operations. If you look at what unions perpetuated in the US automobile market, you will see that ridiculous demands created prices too high for market operations, leading to near failure on the part of manufacturers.

Many on the right dont demonize unions merely because they ask for greater wages for workers, but because they act in such a way that they ask for unfair things that workers normally would not demand.

16

“There is no reason in my mind to be against labor unions… it’s not as if they’re a product of the government.”

Are you kidding me? While you are correct to say people are free to get together and negotiate with their employers. The employer is equally free to employ whoever he/she wants.

If the market wage was $10/hour and my employees came to me and said we want $25/hour or else where going to go on strike and you will lose millions of dollars and wreck all of your customer relationships, I would say fine…YOUR FIRED! And then hire someone else.

If I were to do this today, I would be locked up and thrown in jail. Unions would be virtually non existent in a free market. Just like cartels. How is it that you can’t see that unions are the product of intervention?

This isn’t to mention that a union wage is just as economically destructive as a minimum wage. The unions aren’t “fighting for higher pay”, they are creating unemployment and hurting the very people they claim to be for.

17

My assertion above still stands. Workers have the right to collectively bargain. The owner doesn’t have to cooperate, but they have the right to peaceabley attempt to stop others from working there.

No such right exist. If the owner of a factory or business wants to hire more employees at any wage they are willing to work the owner(s) should be able to. It is their property, not the employees. They may try to bargain, but that doesn’t imply ownership.

I agree. How does this stop them from trying to collectively bargain for better contracts, and peaceably trying to stop others from working/buying from the employer?

How does quiting or firing stop them? Well, they are no longer employed, so their contracts are now void, if that’s what you are getting at. How would they peacefully stop others from working somewhere if the people want to work, and the employer wants to hire? Wouldn’t that be infringing on the owners property somehow? Even if they simply chained themselves together and stood infront of the entrances of the factory to keep applicants from getting in it’s still force. If on the other hand they are boycotting by refusing to buy their products and telling others about all the possible negatives of that factory (which would just be propaganda, bad enough to keep others from working, but they still want to work there).

Even if you had any evidence of this, you are talking about individal unions and their failures, not unionizing itself.

Evidence that most unions only accept skilled labor? I thought it would be a pretty common fact, especially if you are going to talk about unions.

If you agree that entrepeneurs consolidate wealth (make money) than ultimate reliance on ownership of goods will be consolidated into the ones who own the most… so… a purchaseocracy? Idk, it still leads to one man making decisions for another. Private property, especially of the self is the foundation of any great society, but wealth creates power and power consolidates.

I think you have a misunderstanding of entrepreneurship. Something which I won’t go into right now, since it would way off topic to the original post.

I don’t want this topic to deter to topics that are being discussed elsewhere and not the intent of the original post. Also I feel you are hostile to my assertion that, generally right wingers (which I should have said as “people opposed to unionization”) dislike unions because, absent that state they will be the one’s fighting the power of the capitalists (small c, owner’s of things). That’s not an attack on Capitalism, it’s an attack on consolidation of power in any exclusive form as being detrimental to civilized progress.

Owners of things? People who own the means of production? Consolidation of power? How are people who own the means of production (various people and various types of production) consolidating power?

18

May be worth reading. http://mises.org/daily/1604

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

19

I cant speak for all libertarians, but I have no opposition to unions per se. If people want to band together to collectively bargin with their employer thats perfectly fine. However strikes can(and often are) accompanied by violations of employers, their customers, and non-union employees rights(damage to property, blocking of ‘scabs’ and customers from entry, etc.).

However the big problem, imo with unions is that they’ve gone beyond being a bargening agency, to a political interest in their own right, as a result the government has granted unions all kinds of special priveladges that no orginization in a free market would have. And many come at the expense of business.

20

No such right exist. If the owner of a factory or business wants to hire more employees at any wage they are willing to work the owner(s) should be able to. It is their property, not the employees. They may try to bargain, but that doesn’t imply ownership.

And where did I imply that? You would stop workers from protesting outside the property of the business? You would stop them from boycotting the business; both as a merchant and an employer?

If on the other hand they are boycotting by refusing to buy their products and telling others about all the possible negatives of that factory (which would just be propaganda, bad enough to keep others from working, but they still want to work there).

If on the other hand they… what? You never finished that statement. You seem to forget that workers are people too and have the right to seek better conditions. Or, workers can just take what they get and like it.

How would they peacefully stop others from working somewhere if the people want to work, and the employer wants to hire? Wouldn’t that be infringing on the owners property somehow?

How is me protesting your actions, if not done on your property, infringing on your property rights?

Also, what are you calling skilled labor? Is there more skilled labor in the job market in the first place, leading to higher amounts of unionized skilled labor? On top of that, is it more likely that skilled labor, being more in demand, less in supply, has a much better bargaining point, allowing it to unionize easier?

You seem to want to think I am defending unions as right and righteous. I am simply pointing out that hatred of the idea is not neccessary, and dangerous. You would stop my right to freely express myself even if not done on your property?

Entrepeneurs assume risk in capitalistic (or not really, but all the same) ventures. If he is succesful he will amass wealth (economics). Wealth is not a free-flowing phenomenon, it has to be created by the introduction of new goods or monies (scarcity). Entrepeneurs create wealth and large amounts of purchasing power (perhaps consolidate was the wrong word). What is wrong about that?

Everything can’t be based on who has more purchasing power, the rights of the non-owners of things have to be protected as well. Or we can just have rent-serfs and feudalism.