The Ref

by Dave Schuler on December 13, 2012

I’ve been following an argument going on among self-described libertarians in the blogosphere over labor unions and right-to-work laws with a certain amount of bemusement. From my point-of-view, at least, they’re tying themselves into knots on the subject. The original kick-off was this article:

A “union shop” agreement between an employer and a union commits the employer to ensuring that new hires join the union within a specified period. Right-to-work laws ban union-shop agreements.

Let’s put it another way: They violate freedom of contract.

If employers choose to conclude union-shop contracts with unions, what gives the Indiana legislature the right to interfere?

Employers own the wages they will pay and the sites where work will be performed under such contracts. So it’s their right to dispense the wages and make the sites available specifically to union members, just as it’s their right, more generally, to trade with anyone they choose.

When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and possessions. Treating this kind of interference as acceptable means licensing arbitrary interventions into the market by politicians, who are ill-equipped to second-guess the decisions made by the real people making work agreements with one another.

Here’s a response from OpenMarket.org:

On more than one occasion, I’ve heard some libertarians object to right-to-work laws on the grounds that they undermine freedom of contract by barring employers from negotiating closed shop agreements with unions if they so choose. At Reason‘s Hit & Run blog, J.D. Tuccille repeats this argument. Tuccille says he opposes Michigan’s new right-to-work law because it “bans closed shops in which union membership is a condition of employment.”

Libertarians generally oppose banning contractual agreements into which parties voluntarily enter, so Tuccille’s objection seems reasonable — but only because it ignores the alternative.

another from Reason.com:

Right-to-work laws at the state level “balance” federal labor legislation only by countering state intrusion with state intrusion. The result is certain to be a continuing effort to “fix” problems caused by earlier laws. And politicians will be at the center of it all, building their authority while playing the sides against each other.

A free market in which businesses and labor negotiate conditions on their own can be created only by actually freeing the market. It will also reduce the power of government and the role of politicians. Yes, that is more difficult than enacting ever-more legal spackle.

and another from The Volokh Conspiracy:

One argument for right-to-work laws is that such rules provide a counter-balance against an inherent pro-labor bias in federal labor law. But if that’s really the problem, it would seem the better solution would be to fix federal labor law, not endorse yet more government interference with private economic arrangements. Are there better libertarian arguments for right-to-work laws? If so, I’d like to hear them, for at the moment (and despite my anti-union sentiments), I’m not convinced.

One thing we might want to do is define our terms. I would define libertarianism as the political policy that advocates minimizing coercion and maximizing individual freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Minarchism is the sub-division of libertarianism that sees the legitimate role of the state as reducing aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Anarcho-capitalism is the belief that the state should be abolished entirely in favor of private defense and voluntary contracts.

When did all libertarians become minarchists and anarcho-capitalists? I see precious little about individual freedom in any of those posts, lots about contracts, and even more about constraining the state.

I have no particular animus against either labor unions or government. I see them as strictly instrumental. There will always be competing interests, selfish motivations, and rule-breaking. There needs to be a referee. Government is that referee.

Similarly, labor unions are useful to the degree that they lower the transaction costs for negotiating wages or advocate for the welfare of workers and their communities. They are unuseful to the extent that they act for the aggrandizement of union officials, promote inefficient work rules for companies, or are coercive.

What am I missing?

{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }

TastyBits December 14, 2012 at 2:15 am

Dawlin, we’re all whores – one way or another.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:16 am

You can get a solid, which my mother wore, but you’ll have to look it up yourself.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:20 am

My gosh, I like you TB. All that south Louisiana charm. Couldn’t kill it.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:25 am

Those men are terrible. And their women are fierce.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:27 am

You want somebody to eat your lunch? Let me make a play for TB.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:30 am

I’m a kitten.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 2:31 am

They’re feeling protective.

TastyBits December 14, 2012 at 11:23 am

RE: Continuing Need for Regulations

Smallpox, mumps, measles, etc. were once problems, but those problems have mostly gone away (in the US) because of universal vaccinations.

If I understand the theory correctly, vaccinations requirements are no longer needed. Parents will vaccinate their children to avoid the effects of those diseases.

Theory is great until it hits reality.

Steve Verdon December 14, 2012 at 11:30 am

If I understand the theory correctly, vaccinations requirements are no longer needed. Parents will vaccinate their children to avoid the effects of those diseases.

Theory is great until it hits reality.

The anti-vax movement in the UK is much stronger, and there you see a resurgence of some of those diseases. Kids are a great vector, especially the young ones who,

1. Don’t wash their hands.
2. Are snot machines.
3. Love to put things in their mouths.
4. Are brought together via compulsory education.

I don’t see a problem here when not vaccinating….no not a problem at all.

Dave Schuler December 14, 2012 at 11:39 am

Herd immunity will vanish without laws enforcing vaccination. A neat example of herd immunity being a public good.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm

Pertussis, or “whooping cough,” is on the rise.

My mother went through a lot of stuff with seven kids, but I think that scared her most. My third brother had it as a baby.

Janis Gore December 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Don’t forget day care centers, SteveV.

TastyBits December 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Mothers who would not do anything to harm their children no longer know the results of these diseases, and therefore, they assume that their children will never be subjected to them.

Today’s world is vastly different from Upton Sinclair’s, and therefore, it is assumed the results of non-regulation will never return. The regulations are vaccinations against food poisoning, but it is possible to go too far. In some areas we have gone too far, and in others we have not gone far enough.

With vaccinations, a little is good, but a lot is deadly. So too with regulations.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: