It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which articles of faith, apparently not subject to scrutiny, dominate our political discourse. I have yet to hear anyone make a coherent rights argument in favor of unions, for example. There is no irony perceived in, on the one hand, arguing that collective bargaining is a fundamental right on the basis of freedom of association and then, on the other, arguing for a closed shop.
As I’ve written before I think that collective bargaining is a power that is useful and prudent to bestow under certain circumstances and that those circumstances are more relevant in the private sector than in the public sector. But that’s heresy for a lot of people.
Another myth is that this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue:
“the Illinois Federation of Teachers is watching a proposed legislation that they say is an attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for teachers. “It’s actually worse than that Gov. Walker is proposing in Wisconsin,” said federation spokesman Dave Comerford. He said the proposal would make it so “the district could legally walk in and say they’re going to cut pay and there’s literally no recourse” for the unions. ”
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=181287
Yes, I was banned from a blog I’ve been a long-time commenter on yesterday for challenging the myth.
This strikes me as a pretty coherent rights argument in favor of unions:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/02/18/a-basic-conflict/
But it’s worth noting that his conclusion is basically the same as yours.
I’m not sure the distinction between “right” and “power” matters very much. Whatever it is, I think collective bargaining is most important to preserve for those who individually lack bargaining power. Doctors obviously don’t fall in this category; farm workers obviously do. Teachers unfortunately are somewhere in the middle.
It’s only coherent because it’s incomplete. Jason entirely sidesteps the issue of imposing association on some people so that others can freely asociate. I think that’s a fatal flaw in a rights argument.
I think a pragmatic argument of the sort you’re making is a better one.
In the example you give, however, I would introduce an additional factor. Professionals, a category that includes physicians and teachers, are presumed to have a responsibility to the public that farm workers don’t. That’s why I’m skeptical of unions for physicians or teachers but not for farm workers.
I have no issue with private sector workers voluntarily associating into voting blocks for the purpose of furthering their self interest. Unfortunatley, the unions, their pols and the left in general, disagrees, as evidenced by their pushing public voting for certification, thereby introducing coercion.
I think it is ironic that when private sector white collar workers further their self interests its labeled “greed,” while if blue collar workers its given a noble cant: “collective bargaining rights.” To put food on the table, no doubt.
I think its ironic that when unions overplay their hands and business owners react by exercising their rights to replace workers with machines, or move elsewhere to conduct their business, that unions complain loudly about “profits over people.”
I take great issue with public employee unions, who in only the most thinly veiled charade, pretend not to exchange votes for being showered with money controlled by politicians.
I think the freedom to associate blurs an important distinction:
Unions are groups, with whom one can freely associate.
Collective bargaining is a practice, like striking, which may or may not be legal or in the public good.
I have to say I’m shocked that Andy would be banned anywhere; he must save the real flamethrowing for other fora.
I agree that the right to join a union is in conflict with closed shops. If you have the right to join, you have the right not to.
But when management decides to hire workers of which the union does not approve — for any reason — said union also has the right to call a strike.
By the way, the good effect for workers can be pretty spectacular. If I want to write in Hollywood I have to join a union. And I’d be happy to do so: those guys have benefits we struggling book writers can barely imagine. They get paid for rewrites. Incredible! And when they’re screwed by management — and I’m talking straight-up theft, here, not some bs work rules — they have some recourse other than enriching their lawyers.
And you’ll notice the Hollywood unions have not destroyed the business. They’re doing a whole lot better than book people right now.
“Jason entirely sidesteps the issue of imposing association on some people so that others can freely associate. I think that’s a fatal flaw in a rights argument.”
Why is that anything more than a particular instance of the general problem of the moral foundations of democracy itself. It’s really not. Which is why libertarians think democracy sucks.
“I take great issue with public employee unions, who in only the most thinly veiled charade, pretend not to exchange votes for being showered with money controlled by politicians.”
Then why arent public sector workers making more money? I have read up quite a bit on teacher compensation. It is not clear to me if they are overpaid or underpaid. People either ignore data or introduce novel valuation schemes in order to come to a conclusion one way or another. After years of reading academic papers, I assume that if people have difficulty proving a difference, it does not exist or it is very small. I concede that there may be other professions I dont know about, but for teachers, I think this showering money thing is a myth.
Which makes sense if you think about it because we spend most of our time talking about federal policy. Teachers negotiate, for the most part, at the local level. People know teachers and can see how they live.
As to your larger issue, I agree that in theory, public worker unions have issues, even if I cannot find them, other than individual contracts here and there. I think that they should be banned from striking, which should take away their largest weapon. Since closed shops are illegal, I assume you mean union shops or is this a theoretical discussion?
Steve
PD,
Yeah, it’s only the second time I’ve been banned from a site and the first was due to a misunderstanding. I try to keep a moderate tone though I’m not nearly as good at is as Dave. In this case I think the blog owner just finally had enough of me questioning all the unsubstantiated assertions. Oh well, you can’t please everyone.
Dave wrote:
“It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which articles of faith, apparently not subject to scrutiny, dominate our political discourse.”
——
This is what I think is the fundamental problem that we need to address in order to maintain ourselves. Without getting to Weberian, the promise of “rationality” and the way post-enlightenment science is also part of the problem (which might be characterized as a problem of “faith” as well).
Faith and Rationality/Science, if not carefully engaged with, get reduced down to one thing: total certainty and total order.
People who don’t understand the foundations of either mistakenly believe that both are fundamentally objective and deliver us from contradictions.
And thus both get used as panaceas which mask the fact that in the real world, rather than cancelling each other out, contradictions survive, thrive, and typically can never be fully resolved.
Plus, they are also often productive.
Unfortunately we’ve been promised consistency and just don’t want to face that it isn’t always possible.