Feb 23rd 2011, 22:34 by W.W. | IOWA CITY
I'VE repeatedly argued that private- and public-sector unions operate in different institutional settings, raise fundamentally different moral and political questions, and that it is altogether reasonable to support private-sector unions while rejecting public-sector unions on account of the nature of their differences. A common response I've heard from the left is that I'm slyly seeking to sow discord by disingenuously arguing that the larger union movement is not in fact one, but is instead a coalition of fundamentally distinct organisations of unequal moral standing. A common response I've heard from the right is basically the same: "you don't really support private-sector unionism, do you"?
Well, I do. Sort of. It's complicated because American labour law is complicated.
The right of workers to band together to improve their bargaining position relative to employers is a straightforward implication of freedom of association, and the sort of voluntary association that results is the beating heart of the classical liberal vision of civil society. I unreservedly endorse what I'll call the "unionism of free association". My difficulty in coming out wholeheartedly for private-sector unions as they now exist is that they are, by and large, creatures of objectionable statutes which have badly warped the labour-capital power dynamic that would exist under the unionism of free association.
Progressives and libertarians generally part ways on the justifiability of legislation that boosts the bargaining power of unions. Progressives generally think, not implausibly, that government has already put a thumb on the scale in favour of employers through the legal definition of the character and powers of the corporation, such that it is manifestly unjust for government to fail to put an equalising thumb on the scale in favour of unions. For now I only want to say that I think there is indeed a plausible case for government stepping in to help strengthen workers' bargaining power when inequalities in such power (often created by law and legislation) lead to a systemically unfair division of the gains from productive cooperation. I don't think the same plausible case applies to public-sector unions for reasons I've recited ad nauseam.
So, do circumstances merit a further statutory boost for private-sector unions? I don't know. Rather than become mired in largely intractable metaphysical disputes over fairness of the division of the cooperative surplus, which we would need to do in order to determine whether government should do more to augment union power, I believe it would be much more productive to focus on the ways in which the prevailing legal regime clearly handicaps labour relative to the power unions would have under conditions of free association. I heartily agree with Kevin Carson, a left-libertarian theorist and activist, when he argues that:
[T]he room for change lies mainly, not with adding further economic intervention to aid labor at the expense of capital, but rather with eliminating those policies which currently benefit capital at the expense of labor. The question is not what new laws would strengthen the bargaining power of labor, but which existing ones weaken it. ...
The most obvious forms of state intervention that hobble labor are legislation like:
1) The provisions of Taft-Hartley which criminalize sympathy and boycott strikes;
2) The Railway Labor Relations Act and the “cooling off” provisions of Taft-Hartley, which enable the government to prevent a strike from spreading to common carriers and thus becoming a general strike; and
3) “Right-to-Work” (sic) laws, which restrict the freedom of contract by forbidding employers to enter into union shop contracts with a bargaining agent.
Further, we should examine the extent to which even ostensibly pro-labor laws, like the Wagner Act, have served in practice to weaken the bargaining power of labor. Before Wagner, what is today regarded as the conventional strike—an announced walkout associated with a formal ultimatum—was only one tactic among many used by unions.
Mr Carson then goes on to enumerate some of those now-rare tactics, which, taken together, add up to a compelling case that a return to the unionism of free association would improve the bargaining position of labour relative to the status quo.
It is in this light that I wish to join the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney in congratulating Mitch Daniels for his opposition to the "right-to-work" legislation proposed by Indiana Republicans. Presidential, indeed.
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces.
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I find a new sympathy for college admissions officers.
I think today I'll call myself a moderately-pragmatic anarcho-libertarian.
I'm fine with private sector unions as a means of helping workers get a bigger piece of the profit pie. I just want to keep both capital and labor from capturing elected representatives or regulatory agencies. Continual competitive pressure is my goal, while the goal of any established company or labor group is to set up barriers to entry against new capital or new labor.
Has anyone partaking in the current public sector union debate argued for allowing military personnel to form a union for collective bargaining purposes?
I think I agree with this, although if M.S. writes a rebuttal of this five minutes from now I'll probably sort of agree with that too. As with many other issues I don't have much background in, I like following the debate on this blog while I wait for the chance to chime in with something that I hope sounds clever.
"I like following the debate on this blog while I wait for the chance to chime in with something that I hope sounds clever."
Unfortunately for me, and to paraphrase Keynes, my inability to come up with something clever is greater than the bloggers' ability to keep blogging on any given subject.
This analysis is rooted in the real-world dynamics of labor-capital relations, which makes Wilkinson's apoplectic response to the very idea of public sector unions all that more mysterious. If public sector unions are inherently political entities which syphon dollars out of the state treasury, they do so for the benefit of labor and in competition with the political entities which try to syphon dollars for the benefit of capital. It's largely a zero-sum game, and public sector unions winning help other workers (since government union jobs help provide a wage floor for similar jobs).
Analyzing the real-world dynamics of this relationship reveals that labor is getting its ass kicked. At some point a recognition of the extreme income inequality needs to come into play here. But Wilkinson's career at Cato indicates that he thinks income inequality is not that big a deal, so he will probably continue to take into account real-world dynamics in other areas but not in regards to public sector unions.
"I don't think the same plausible case applies to public-sector unions for reasons I've recited ad nauseam."
And yet this was not enough, because one of the first five comments to this post asserts without any shred of evidence other than its author's own deeply held conviction that public unions indirectly win concessions for private unions. Dear WW, could you please recite the differences between public and private unions again?
P.S. You don't really really support unions, do you?
I tried writing this coherently. But without great success, I fear. Oh well....
I would have less problem with allowing employers and unions to enter into a closed shop contract if the union did not have the power to coordinate with the unions of suppliers (and potential customers) to force all competitors of that employer to do the same. If there is a closed shop employer, and I want to set up an open shop, that shouldn't be a problem. But if the union representing workers in my competitor's company is in a position to demand ("solidarity") that the people that I would potentially do business with refuse to do so unless I become a closed shop, then I have a problem.
In short, you can have right-to-work laws but allow sympathy strikes. Or vis versa. But you cannot both allow sympathy strikes and allow closed shops, without unduly constraining competition, to the detriment of the economy. (Naturally, the same applies to mandating right-to-work and banning sympathy strikes.) In short, pick one.
Well chosen points well put.
Has W.W. considered this rather depressing scenario?:
1. Government worker unions disbanded
2. All industries nationalized
3. All private sector unions disbanded because they are now government workers themselves
4. 10 years later, all industries privatized WITHOUT the unions.
Welcome to the land of the Oligarchs...
"The question is not what new laws would strengthen the bargaining power of labor, but which existing ones weaken it."
With the dominant conservative, business-friendly party, the Republican Party, the only contender against the Democratic Party, which would, without union support, become an even more business friendly party than it is now, where will the political will come from to get rid o existing laws which weaken the power of labor?
When both major parties predominantly listen to nothing but business seeking rents and none listen at all to any labor unions seeking rents for themselves, who will actually bother strengthening labor rights?
This is the part of political economics WW and others who are blasé about the disappearance of unions can not ever possibly provide answers to.
@Anjin-San
2 and 3 are unnecessary and rather ridiculous fortune telling. Private sector unions have been rapidly disappearing and will evaporate soon enough.
I agree totally. Firms should be able to choose who they employee regardless of race, creed, color or union status. They should also be able to contract on the same.
I agree totally. Firms should be able to choose who they employee regardless of race, creed, color or union status. They should also be able to contract on the same.
I'm really freakin' sick of talking about unions, so I'm not even going to try to respond to this post, but I will add just a couple uncomfortable truths here:
Eliminating unions does not prevent government employees, namely ununionized teachers and administrators, from forming associations which can lobby the legislature. My personal take is that these "associations" are even less representative of educators than unions and liable to all the same problems and more!, like reliance on outside funding which influences their lobbying efforts.
This sudden attack on unions has everything to do with the Citizens United decision and nothing to do with "fiscal responsibility." Corporate lobbyists would like to be able to have unlimited access to the lawmakers and the public without the interference of unions, which were granted the equal right to this access.
I'm certain in many of my beliefs but I admit that balancing labor and capitalists is tough. WW isn't alone. I firmly believe in the right to free association but I also know unions do much harm. We can propose theoretical policies that may or may not strike the right balance. Since it's all theory, WW believes libertarian policies produce optimal results. I'm skeptical but, again, it's all theoretical.
Thanks a lot for the mention, Will.
Doug, I've looked back at this post a few times now, and you've still confused me. Did you just post your comment on the wrong article, or did I skim over something that would unlock the key to your comment's meaning?
So, do you "reject public sector unions," or do you merely reject laws governing the state's approach to bargaining with them? Because you say both things here. You also say that "The right of workers to band together to improve their bargaining position relative to employers is a straightforward implication of freedom of association." That is a clear statement of support for unions of people interested in being employed by the state. You say you don't support laws that "boost" the bargaining power of public employee unions. But what of the bargaining power inherent in a group of workers capable of denying a quantity of service to a purchaser? What you see as a boost may simply be a state's attempt to smooth over the possibly unpredictable relations between a group of particular people that the state wants to keep in its employ, and the state itself. Surely you, a libertarian, would not will this voluntary association be legally prohibited from choosing, if it finds it in its power, to deny its services to a purchaser making an unacceptable bid? At least not without a compensatory legal recognition of the group's factual real-world, would you? Or are you a libertarian who favors an uncompensated legal prohibition of a selected particular group's right to determine collectively when and to whom it may deny sale of its pooled services? To compel them, in other words, to sell said services for the price offered?
I would be surprised if you, as a libertarian, would want to give the state special legal powers over this particular voluntary association (not coincidentally, one with whom it is interested in doing business) that it doesn't have over other such voluntary associations of service providers? That would be contrary to a universal embrace of a "unionism of free association.'
Would it not?
I always liked this -- roughly paraphrased -- reply from Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard when asked whether they would allow unions to organise in Hewlett Packard: "If we ever get to the point where can't do a better job of taking care of our people than they can, then perhaps we should."
WW you've made your case and given concessions. I'm inclined to agree with you. But what about the realpolitik point that this is all about hurting the money and operation of the Democratic party?