As long as workers dont coerce the employer, how is a union not a market phenomenon? If you can’t sate your workers, your business will go under, just like if you cant sate the investors, or the purchasers.
Because all unions can do is sap where the actual wealth creation is comming from. A worker trades their relatively meager form of wealth creation (their labor) to a superior form of wealth creation (the capitalist). If this wasn’t the case the worker would not have made the trade off. There is no possible way a union can be good for the actual creation of wealth, as they do not calculate and make risks with the resources in the environment that they traded their labor for pay to work in; this calculating is done, by what the labor worker affirmed by the very nature of their action, by the capitalist.
At least a corporation is getting subsidized to create something (however useless it may be), all unions get subsidies for is to take wealth. Of course being that there are far fewer capitalists than workers, which do you think has more sway with populist governments?
Also:
-
Equality is a ghost in the machine
-
I don’t see anything inherently good about massive amounts of people comming together and demanding they get more stuff. If anything I would say this is catastrophic, as shown by the past 300 years of Enlightenment style mass governments that exist in some form or another. If a more market oriented system was in place, I am sure the people who were actually creating the wealth would prevent things like this from happening, it’s only prudent.
Because all unions can do is sap where the actual wealth creation is comming from. A worker trades their relatively meager form of wealth creation (their labor) to a superior form of wealth creation (the capitalist).
I dare you to have an idea and noone to work for you. The fact that labor has less of a bargaining power is more a subjective problem with the system, than an objective fact of reality.
as they do not calculate and make risks with the resources in the environment that they traded their labor for pay to work
Sure they do, they just may not value the owner’s belief that he should profit x amount more than them. Most workers understand that if the company does better, they do better. Why shouldnt one have every right as a worker that he does as a capitalist, they are usually the same thing?
I don’t see anything inherently good about massive amounts of people comming together and demanding they get more stuff.
Granted. But isn’t massive amounts of people coming together and wanting/trading (as opposed to forcefully demanding) for more stuff the foundation of market economics?
Does it not bother libertarian’s that many labor unions members become syndicalists, though they may not know it?
As long as workers dont coerce the employer, how is a union not a market phenomenon? If you can’t sate your workers, your business will go under, just like if you cant sate the investors, or the purchasers.
The problem is that unions, as they exist today, DO coerce their employers. Or more specificly, they get the state to Coerce their employers for them. Thats why in most states people who get hired in a union job are required to pay union dues, even if they dont want membership(and they cant seek represnetation by a different union). Thats also why employers are required to re-hire employees who go on strike, even if they hired somebody else to do their job already.
As I said before, I dont have an opposition to unions per-se. Although I agree with an earlier poster who said that in a truly free society, if they exist at all, their influence would be minimal(and wouldnt extend beyond the places their members actually work for). Because most employers would find it more efficent to simply fire workers who threaten to go on strike.
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.
…and…
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?
You said they have the right to stop others from working at a business that they have no authority over. How would they achieve keeping people, who are willing to work, from working at a business that is willing to hire? Not unless they are making an offer they can’t refuse, I don’t see how they would stop someone (who wants to work) from working.
If I found them to be disruptive to my business that violates my property rights (or any rights for that matter, maybe my business is on a strip and it’s driving everyone’s customers away, and now everyone is displeased about this, and it’s creating a disturbance to everyone around) I would look into what legal matters would be taken to stop it.
If on the other hand they… what? You never finished that statement.
Are you blind? “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).”
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.
Yeah, they can seek better conditions elsewhere, at another place of employment.
How is me protesting your actions, if not done on your property, infringing on your property rights?
If you’re not on my property, it obviously doesn’t, but how are you going to stop people, who are willing/want to work, from working at a specific place? How will you stop them? If they don’t care about your boycotts and protest, and are more worried about getting employed, will you physically stop them from entering the building? If that’s the case, you would be infringing on their 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?
What am I calling skilled labor? I’m calling skilled labor skilled labor. I don’t know the ratio of skilled labor compared to unskilled labor given a specific area of industry or their demand.
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?
It’s not hatred, it’s simply knowing what works and what doesn’t, and not promoting something that doesn’t work. If I said “yes” to your question, what would you respond with? You seem to keep asking questions with obvious answers.
For the rest of what you said I’m not going to bother with. Dondoolee blew the rest of it out the water. Yet, I found this rather odd…
If he is succesful he will amass wealth (economics).
Are you equating wealth with economics?
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.
What rights do “non-owners” have that go beyond the scope of property rights?
I only hate public sector unions.
Because I don’t believe public sector unions engage in collective bargaining. Especially in heavily Democratic states. Those unions negotiate with the politicians, who usually were elected with heavy support from union donations. So, of course, the politicians pay back the unions by giving better contracts to public unions. Especially since its not their money and since it will help them get re-elected.
The public sector unions, in effect, negotiate with themselves.
I think your conservative bias is making you overtly hostile just for the fact that I defended unionization. You are attempting to shift the debate away from rational discourse, to a fight where we pick each other’s post apart on ideological grounds. Instead of just answering the question posed by the OP, you are acting like someone put you in a corner and you have no choice but to lash out at any percieved threats… and to equate poeple’s right to express themselves as an attack on liberty, simply because it is an attack against capitalists. We have no need of this ideological bias.
You said they have the right to stop others
I said no such thing friend. I said they have the right to try. I can offer you no better defense of my position than Rothbard;
"boycott is an attempt to persuade other people to have nothing to
do with some particular person or firrn-either socially or in agreeing
not to purchase the firm’s product. Morally a boycott may be used
for absurd, reprehensible, laudatory, or neutral goals. It may be used, for
example, to attempt to persuade people not to buy non-union grapes or
not to buy union grapes. From our point of view, the important thing
about the boycott is that it is purely voluntary, an act of attempted persuasion,
and therefore that it is a perfectly legal and licit instrument of
action…
Whether
we wish any particular boycott well or ill depends on our moral values
and on our attitudes toward the concrete goal or activity. But a boycott is
legitimate per se. If we feel a given boycott to be morally reprehensible,
then it is within the rights of those who feel this way to organize a counterboycott
to persuade the consumers otherwise, or to boycott the boycotters.
All this is part of the process of dissemination of information and opinion
within the 'framework of the rights of private property…
In a secondary boycott, labor
unions try to persuade consum,ers not to buy from firms who deal with
non-union (primary boycotted) firms. Again, in a free society, it should
be their right to try such persuasion, just as it is the right of their opponents
to counter with an opposing boycott. In the same way it is the right of
the League of Decency to try to organize a boycott of pornographic motion
pictures, just as it would be the right of opposing forces to organize a
boycott of those who give in to the League’s boycott."
End of Quote
If you’re not on my property, it obviously doesn’t, but how are you going to stop people, who are willing/want to work, from working at a specific place? How will you stop them? If they don’t care about your boycotts and protest, and are more worried about getting employed, will you physically stop them from entering the building? If that’s the case, you would be infringing on their rights.
Your bias is putting words in my mouth, and as such, I will probably refrain from responding to such posts in the future.
I don’t know the ratio of skilled labor compared to unskilled labor given a specific area of industry or their demand.
My point exactly.
it’s simply knowing what works and what doesn’t
If only we all had your omniscience…
Are you equating wealth with economics?
I am considering wealth as part of economics, yes. Do you have a problem with that?
Why does this have to be a contest where someone “blows out of the water?” Are you trying to say the social sciences can be verified empiracally? Dondo had a reasonable post, I daresay much more so than your sophomoric attempts, and I responded in turn. We call that rational discourse.
Either way, I respect your right to have your own opinion. I find them inherently bias against workers, which most capitalists were at one point, maybe still are. But, one cannot legislate ignorance lol.
I dare you to have an idea and noone to work for you. The fact that labor has less of a bargaining power is more a subjective problem with the system, than an objective fact of reality.
I’m not defending ideas, I am defending actual production structure. Also, everything is labor it just matters as to where it falls within the system of production. The lower and cheaper one sells their labor to a production structure, the less the bargaining power. This is how a material world operates. Any other notion is a zeitgeist used to rile up groups of people to believe in some jinn in a bottle.
Sure they do
They most certainly do not calculate what is good and profitable for the business they just contracted themselves off to serve. If they did, they would be owners of the structure, not employees.
Why shouldnt one have every right as a worker that he does as a capitalist, they are usually the same thing?
I do not acknowledge rights; that said, when via contract of some sort one has limited themselves, the “rights” are skewed, they have to be. This is how production and resources are managed, any other way would lead to lesser forms of wealth maximization. Despite what the person lower on the production totem pole thinks, says, believes, and has faith in; his actions and the material nature of things point to the fact that his best chance at the gaining of wealth is due to being where he is at making what he is making.
In a market society, if he would have thought to have been better off going somewhere else or being his own boss, he would have done so. Instead he chose to work under someone else via some form of contract.
But isn’t massive amounts of people coming together and wanting/trading (as opposed to forcefully demanding) for more stuff the foundation of market economics?
Yes, individuals who seek out unlimited wants and needs and are calculating with their actual resources at their disposal, within the realm of self and their actual power/ sphere of influence, is market economics. People seeking out their unlimited wants and ends, banning together and marching under some ideal that doesn’t exist, and sapping actual material wealth is classic Enlightenment barbarism.
Look, there is no doubt in my mind that when people see stuff that they want, they will take it if they can (why wouldn’t they). Any creative person has to calculate this in the business model, if he doesn’t the person is a fool.
I think your conservative bias is making you overtly hostile just for the fact that I defended unionization.
What conservative bias do I have? Are you making a generalization that since I don’t accept unions with open arms I’m conservative?
You are attempting to shift the debate away from rational discourse, to a fight where we pick each other’s post apart on ideological grounds. Instead of just answering the question posed by the OP, you are acting like someone put you in a corner and you have no choice but to lash out at any percieved threats…
Actually, you “picked” on my reply that I made (which was the 2nd reply to the thread). I’ve been defending my position from that point forward, on ideological grounds.
[A]nd to equate poeple’s right to express themselves as an attack on liberty, simply because it is an attack against capitalists. We have no need of this ideological bias.
The bias and attacks involve you constantly misinterpreting what I’ve been posting. Sometimes completely disregarding entire sections of what was posted. I’ve made no such statement about people expressing themselves, nor any attacks on liberty.
“You said they have the right to stop others.”
I said no such thing friend.
…
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.
…and…
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?
Here are my responses to these two quotes about them “peacefully” stoping others from working somewhere when both the employer and potential employee are willing to make a mutual agreement to engage in employment.
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…
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).
…and again…
You said they have the right to stop others from working at a business that they have no authority over. How would they achieve keeping people, who are willing to work, from working at a business that is willing to hire? Not unless they are making an offer they can’t refuse, I don’t see how they would stop someone (who wants to work) from working.
I understand Rothbard’s position on boycotting, but if the employer(s) wants to hire new employees and fire the protestors, they have the right, no? Are you saying the protestors have the right to keep new employee’s from being hired? Just because they boycott doesn’t mean it’s an action that will work completely to gain the intended effect.
Your bias is putting words in my mouth, and as such, I will probably refrain from responding to such posts in the fut**ure.
You are only avoiding what was being asked about your position.
My point exactly.
What point?
If only we all had your omniscience…
You can too, just read a book about the topic at hand.
I am considering wealth as part of economics, yes. Do you have a problem with that?
Yes, it doesn’t explain anything.
Why does this have to be a contest where someone “blows out of the water?” Are you trying to say the social sciences can be verified empiracally? Dondo had a reasonable post, I daresay much more so than your sophomoric attempts, and I responded in turn. We call that rational discourse.
It’s not a contest, but you seem to be creating strawmen (or just don’t understand what I’m talking about at all), misinterpreted my posts (or ignored sections of them), and avoided statements questioning your posts. I assume “sophomoric attempts” is about me scrutinizing what you’ve posted trying to look for an answer.
Either way, I respect your right to have your own opinion. I find them inherently bias against workers, which most capitalists were at one point, maybe still are. But, one cannot legislate ignorance lol.
Your arrogance is far greater than any perceived “ignorance” on my part.
I’m not defending ideas, I am defending actual production structure. Also, everything is labor it just matters as to where it falls within the system of production. The lower and cheaper one sells their labor to a production structure, the less the bargaining power. This is how a material world operates. Any other notion is a zeitgeist used to rile up groups of people to believe in some jinn in a bottle.
I totally agree. Unionization is just a way to lessen being at the mercy of the employer; to sell the labor higher and more expensive. A good entrepeneur will take this into account and either hire the workers and lessen his own profit, set up shop somewhere else, or not go into business. People will always tend to cheap credit and high wages, Rothbard discussed this in his “Panic of 1819.” That will always be a market phenomena that business will have to temper.
They most certainly do not calculate what is good and profitable for the business they just contracted themselves off to serve. If they did, they would be owners of the structure, not employees.
Sure they do, that is why some workers are productive. They may not understand entrepeneurship as much as the board or w/e, but they know if they do better, the company does better, and they will reap the rewards. If a worker started buying stock in his company, what would change about him, other than that he became a capitalist? We can’t mistake ignorance for stupidity.
his actions and the material nature of things point to the fact that his best chance at the gaining of wealth is due to being where he is at making what he is making.
In a market society, if he would have thought to have been better off going somewhere else or being his own boss, he would have done so. Instead he chose to work under someone else via some form of contract.
Labor is the only resource the worker has to use to seek a better situation. Why does the capitalist have the right to use his resources to better his situation, but the worker does not? I will never stand behind “workers should just take what they get and like it.” That is pure, exclusive, elitism. Everyone should try to improve thier standing in the world, and smart entrepeneurs will take that into account.
People seeking out their unlimited wants and ends, banning together and marching under some ideal that doesn’t exist, and sapping actual material wealth is classic Enlightenment barbarism.
I dont know what you mean by this in the context of this thread. It seems you are speaking more of socialists than unions (many times mutual, but not always). What if, instead of higher wages, unions started negotiating for stock options? Like I said, let us not mistake ignorance for stupidity or deviousness.
I do not acknowledge rights
Did you mispeak there? That would lead me to believe you desire tyranny, and I know that cannot be true.
Yes, I responded to one line of your post. And you have done nothing but jump down my throat like I attacked you since than. You talk of taking you out of context and that is all you do to my posts. This WILL be my last response to you. It would be more productive to argue with the sun not to rise tomorow.
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.
…and…
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?
I said try. I didnt say they can stop them, but they can try. Don’t you get that, by saying they cannot try you are stopping all boycott and their rights to free expression? Do you not realize the difference between forcing someone to do something, and trying to convince someone to do something?
I understand Rothbard’s position on boycotting, but if the employer(s) wants to hire new employees and fire the protestors, they have the right, no? Are you saying the protestors have the right to keep new employee’s from being hired? Just because they boycott doesn’t mean it’s an action that will work completely to gain the intended effect
Why are you being so dense as to equate try with do? See above, I never said they could stop them, I said they could try, peacefully, non-forcefully. Only a tyrant would stop them from freely expressing themselves. What would be your response if a group of workers started meeting on thursdays to discuss their contracts and what they can bargain for the next time they have to sign them?
Grow up friend. This is my last response to you until you quell that anger you have and start engaging in rational discoure. Perhaps you thought I attacked you, and this was your response. But it is furthering neither of our causes and will just turn into a shouting match. Your idea that my beliefs have to exactly match yours is highly dangerous friend.
Or you can think Im just avoiding your superior stance on the issues. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Yes, I responded to one line of your post. And you have done nothing but jump down my throat like I attacked you since than. You talk of taking you out of context and that is all you do to my posts. This WILL be my last response to you. It would be more productive to argue with the sun not to rise tomorow.
Yet, you’ve kept responding and posting, and I’ve kept defending my position.
I said try. I didnt say they can stop them, but they can try. Don’t you get that, by saying they cannot try you are stopping all boycott and their rights to free expression? Do you not realize the difference between forcing someone to do something, and trying to convince someone to do something?
You don’t seem to understand what I’m getting at when you say they “try to stop others from working for the employer”. In what ways? Beyond the basic boycotting, if fails, how would unions stop others from working at a given place of employment?
Outside of what you posted it’s fact that unions have physically assualted workers who were brought in to continue production who were willing to work for same or less than what the union members were currently making, and obviously less than what they are demanding.
(On an unrelated note I find the idea of unionization to keep “lower” workers from entering their areas of industry or business a lot like those who support anti-immigration laws to keep foreigners from working for lower wages than what they are asking for.)
The workers can boycott all they want, but if they employer finds it’s more feasible to fire the current set of unionized employees and hire new ones the employer will, the boycott’s don’t mean anything at this point.
What would be your response if a group of workers started meeting on thursdays to discuss their contracts and what they can bargain for the next time they have to sign them?
Lock them in a dungeon with the rats.
Grow up friend. This is my last response to you until you quell that anger you have and start engaging in rational discoure. Perhaps you thought I attacked you, and this was your response. But it is furthering neither of our causes and will just turn into a shouting match. Your idea that my beliefs have to exactly match yours is highly dangerous friend.
What anger? I’m only defending my position in which you cannot grasp. I never said or implied your beliefs have to match mine, I’m only trying to prove what’s right and what works. You can believe whatever you want.
Lock them in a dungeon with the rats
With liberty and justice for all. You can’t argue with a tyrant.
We can go back and forth on what violence labor and business has made agaisnt each other. That makes neither of them right. Nor does it invalidate people’s right to go into business together, or collectively bargain for their labor.
You’re arguing about unions, I am arguing about unionization. I have rothbard on my side, I guess I can count that as a vicotry lol…
I cant believe I let you troll me into another response. Im done with you tyrant. Have a nice day :D’
You’re arguing about unions, I am arguing about unionization.
Can you define a difference and how neither of them are somehow related, and this makes my argument void?
I have rothbard on my side, I guess I can count that as a vicotry
How is he on your side?
Enron exploited people and laughed at the starving grandma’s they were creating, ergo, business is evil. That is what you’re arguing.
To see how Rothbard is on my side, please refer to the previous post where I show Rothbard wholeheartedly agreeing with me.
I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!
Clearly your both wrong. Rothbard is on my side and I have ir-refutable proof.
For identity protection purposes however I have been forced to change the color of my skin and hair so that I cannot be easily detectable. Still you can rest assure that is me standing next to Rothbard pointing. Do you think the Rothbard would allow me to do this were he not on my side?!?!?
+10/10
You win the debate!
A good entrepeneur will take this into account and either hire the workers and lessen his own profit, set up shop somewhere else, or not go into business.
Right, but if someone is under a contract that can be enforced and the owner sees people unionizing, there is no need for him not to fire the employees. If he couldn’t fire them, they already had enough bargining power to get a raise anyway. Unionizing would be a desperate last gamble by men who were prepared for a raise or bust.
Why does the capitalist have the right to use his resources to better his situation, but the worker does not? I will never stand behind “workers should just take what they get and like it.” That is pure, exclusive, elitism.
It’s not about rights, it is about power and the nature of production. If the power is designated in a propertarian form, wealth can be accumulated, if not barbarism is the name of the game. This is not about elitism, I am non-cognitive to the term, it is about the creation of wealth, culture, and civilization. If you want X than Y must follow. Unions have no place in a society that wishes to maximize wealth, they simply couldn’t exist. Moreover, in a society where the labor is going to be fairly fluid, I would imagine most workers could easily aquire skills and money within a somewhat short time span and have a decent enough chance to become their own capitalist if they wanted.
I dont know what you mean by this in the context of this thread. It seems you are speaking more of socialists than unions (many times mutual, but not always). What if, instead of higher wages, unions started negotiating for ? Like I said, let us not mistake ignorance for stupidity or deviousness.
Lol, I probably did lose focus and was on “rant alert”. I think I meant to view people as “The Labor Movement” or to view an odd dichotomy of labor vs owner in a fluid economy. As far as the severity of stock options vs wages being negotiated by unions, that is impossible to theorize or comment on as it is a case by case basis.
I don’t tend to call people stupid for demanding more money (nor did I imply to), in fact I expect it, it is only natural to want more. In fact economics is dealing with peoples unlimited wants and needs with limited resources, scarcity is the issue. Of course the “solution” is the market economy.
Did you mispeak there? That would lead me to believe you desire tyranny, and I know that cannot be true.
I mean in a normitive sense. Obviously custom legal rights exist and must to preserve civilization. How and in what form is ideal, I am too dumb to tell people what to prefer, all I know is that markets work wonders.
Right, but if someone is under a contract that can be enforced and the owner sees people unionizing, there is no need for him not to fire the employees. If he couldn’t fire them, they already had enough bargining power to get a raise anyway. Unionizing would be a desperate last gamble by men who were prepared for a raise or bust.
In this situation they could say he/we get a raise, or we all leave. But as you said, that is a desperate last gamble. I would argue that the company makes X, lowest man makes Y, top makes Z. It’s all about personal wants, and subjective pursuit of material wealth beyond what one can even use (TV’s in rooms that will never be used, garages full of cars that are never driven… and if you want these things, more power to you…) that decides the difference between what Z and Y make. And none of it harms the company. Unions would have a place to work with the charities and fund-raisers to diminish wealth being wasted.
As far as the severity of stock options vs wages being negotiated by unions, that is impossible to theorize or comment on as it is a case by case basis.
My point exactly tho. I am in now way saying the current unions we have now is ideal, or even desired. I am just making the case that there is a place for non-violent unions in any society trying to preserve the prosperity of the worker. Perhaps that is an issue that could be pushed to potential socialists… if you get the workers to buy capital… they WILL own the means of production. The entrepeneur is a thing to be valued. But nothing non-subjective says that there has to be such a large gap between worker/owner for business to thrive.
How and in what form is ideal, I am too dumb to tell people what to prefer
I wouldn’t say dumb. The man who doesn’t seek power is the man I trust with it.