a libertarian "bleeder "considers unions as equalizers

so what's the balance on unions pro and con?


this chap lays it all out in  10  points

i'll skip points 1 thru 6 ...they are the usual well meaning class poison

though i'll say he manages to present them in a most  annoying
 cream of wheat  fashion   that changes little and accimplishes less

at any rate
u can read it all here

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/06/3087/

.
now to points we might want to consider more deeply

this one i take personally
.
"7) Unions– their leadership, their membership, their supporters– are capable of significant bullying that easily spills into immoral coercion against outsiders, nonmembers, and dissenters; the charge of “scab” is often an accusation of punishable treason against a cause that the accused never signed up for."

the scab problem only exists because the strike is not considered
 a fully lawful act here in amerika inc
and besides that
 unions operate under  absurdly tilted rules of the game here too

if a strike is called and some employees want to go to work thru a picket line
i doubt that all by itself
creates huge coercion-ary hazards our softee here lamments

a bargaining unit (BU )
 may well rely on sympathetic action  by fellow workers not in the BU
 but to have formed a bargaining unit
               without adequate clout is plain and simply
              a strategic error from the get go
ie
if the BU has insufficient leverage battling the  corporate when acting alone that BU has bigger challenges then to avoid bullying scabs
and that BU  needs to consider wider options

and besides that
 the very existence of a BU
 l submit "proves"  internal dissenters are not numerous enough
to pose a crucial threat to the union's  bargaining position

so itsnot fellow employees not even from inside the BU
  that pose a threat worthy of violence
   its  precisely scabs that bring out the bully boy in a BU on strike

remedy ?

the importation of outside replacements can and should be  unlawful ...end of point

--------------------------------------

now comes this guys "positives"in two points :

"8. Unions have been and continue to be absolutely indispensable for the mitigation of workplace power imbalances between managers and employees; they provide due process protections, protection against favoritism and nepotism and retaliation and harassment sexual and otherwise, protection against unjust dismissal and against the countless ways that managers can use the threat of dismissal to gain personal advantage. .... "

   well said ...but ....then there's this too :

".. there’s a sense in which many or most of these abuses are contrary to a firm’s interest. "

"a sense " ?
    what sense ...other then they are unlawful acts ?
i notice glibertarians like this line of talk..
and i think here's wh

watch him go  on from there  to total bogosity :

all these job site  oppressions by management against defenseless employees
"   amount to managers acting on their own behalf instead of on the firm’s,
 and so represent a type of corruption."
what ?
"   .. the manager demanding sexual services is seeking something that is only for his own benefit, not for the firm’s. "

oh ? and ....?

 " the same is true when someone is promoted or fired because of a personal relationship– favoritism or retaliation."
ya .....but notice the selection its a turn  toward what else....

" the principal-agent problems involved
                   in firms trying to manage their own managers "

in so when he suggests " It’s certainly possible to generate these protections
without unions; many professionals have them."
you expect him to suggest other means without the unions bad side
but no instead  he walks himself back aways:

".. for many non-professional employees, it has only ever been unions
that fought for these protections; it has only ever been unions
 that provided them; and they do not survive well when unions die out."

one might wish for at least a guess why that might be
maybe along the lines of welfare meets the profit motive ...
   one is left however thinking unions are there to prevent corruption
and bullying by straw bosses
---guys got a real thing about bullys but hey he's a libertarian
and the definition of a libertarian
   is a nerd  that got bullied in high school


.-------------------------------
now comes the big point ..the real point  the inter class bargain itself :

"9) Collective wage bargaining on the offer curve within the Edgeworth box between employees and employers is not only legitimate but (at least often) a positive good
..... there is bargaining room to maneuver in any given employment setting;
there are lower and higher wages that are both compatible with a given efficient level of firm output. ... if there are rents to be had or surpluses to be gained thanks to the strictly strategic aspects of bargaining– because “equilibrium wage” actually describes a range– then workers ought to have a reasonable chance of winning the negotiation and gaining that surplus..... if there are rents to be had or surpluses to be gained thanks to the strictly strategic aspects of bargaining– because “equilibrium wage” actually describes a range– then workers ought to have a reasonable chance of winning the negotiation and gaining that surplus."

great if he just ended it all there in fact i'll cheer him on

 "  that's the ticket  pal... throw the text book at em
  give those Galltish  bastards in the board room the old what for .."


and yet ever the prufrock...he dithers  away the impact of that fine passage :

"It might be difficult– might be impossible– to get institutions that would enable collective bargaining within that range and still check against bargaining that pushes outside the range and hurts competitiveness."

ya unions might go too far

lets hope so !

his wind up is as washy as it is wishy

"There’s nothing approaching a theory here. I look at some industries, some sectors, some places and say “there’s too much unionization there; the bad effects are getting crippling.” ....and I look at other industries, sectors, and places and say “there’s too little unionization here,”


"..I no longer have the basic hostility to them that many people (including many libertarians?) ..do.. especially when workers evidently suffer from managerial workplace domination and abuse and lack procedural protections against them"


bully unions trump bully strawbosses

well you gotta take your class allies as they are ..right ?