If we are supposed to look at the supposedly glorious early days of unionism, then we must also look at their historical and ever-present threat (and use) of violence. Anyone who supports unionism has made the moral choice to accept whatever level of violence the union chooses to use. Turning the other way is simply a tacit approval of the technique. (Everybody is familiar with this method by watching Turtlehead Colmes when he is challenged to criticize a lib.)
The individual employee has the right to negotiate a contract with the employer. That employee could not, however, delegate his responsibilites to perform the work assigned to him to another party, so how does anyone gain the right (exept for government mandate) to interfere with the one-on-one relationship?
Unions claim ownership of jobs, yet they accept none of the risks that owners do. Therefore, unions get input into management decisions without risk. Capitalism only works when risk is rewarded and punished based on performance. The only source of increased societal wealth is by increases in productivity. Does anyone believe the cause of unionism promotes productivity? Explain to me what a union rep produces. How many widgets per hour?
Strikes are protected by government action, thus affecting the performance of a business by those other than its owners or customers. If employees can legally conspire to raise wages, businesses should be allowed to conspire to suppress them. Unionism developed during the great wave of populism of the late 19th Century when, instead of being celebrated as the great creators of wealth and improved living standards, business was seen as an exploiter. Nobody back then was shanghaied and dropped into a factory job - they all went willingly, many of them to escape the drudgery, exposure to unsafe conditions, and economic risks from climate and market variability inherent in farming. If they hadn’t seen the deal as a way to improve their living standard, why would they have left the farm in the first place?
Paying a union member more than what the market determines his labor is worth is the economic equivalent of eating the seed corn today instead of saving it for planting season. Every single grain of corn (and every single dollar) that is used today is unavailable for producing future crops. So, not only are the prices of products produced by union labor unnecessarily high today, but it reduces investment for tomorrow’s growth.
—Anyone who supports unionism has made the moral choice to accept whatever level of violence the union chooses to use.—
One of the reasons unions came about was because some businesses were using the police to bust heads. Based on that, one could also say, “Anyone who supports big business has made the moral choice to accept whatever level of violence the business chooses to use.”
Unions, like other businesses, are each different. They should be judged independently. Genreally speaking, I come down on unions hard, but I will not just say “unions are all violent” without evidence to support that statement. I really hate the teachers union and consider them a blight on our shcool system. There are a few others I have strong evidence for “hating”. But I’m more neutral on others.
Nothing created by man is perfect. Not even religion.
I have never been a member of a union. I have been dragged into more than one union squabble, both between unions and employers and unions vs. unions. You may want to note that my last post was in response to a comment that Christianity was a communist group. In no way do I suggest that unions in their current incarnation are anything more than “workers of the world” front organizations that maintain their power by purchasing legislation and intimidating anyone who questions them. They are by definition a RICO Crime in progress.
Unfortunately, individual responsibility, mutual respect and honesty are not part of the equation when it comes to people. Nobel intent was never part of the equation. The original government intervention was on the side of the employer not a level playing field. Politicians then learned that unions payed better for their services than the businessmen and they also brought vote guarantees and violent rent-a-mobs. What better marriage than that?
If there is a justification for any collective bargaining it should be to insure that the employer, employee relationship is based on the actual work performed and the agreed benefits to be paid. That should be a condition that both employer and employee want to happen. Operative word should. We are very far down that slippery slope and most want to get off, but to where and in whom do we place our trust?