I know we've discussed this topic way too much lately, but I finally caved in and decided to post my thoughts on unions. Here are a few articles from last week that really grind my gears.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/opinion/23wed1…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?…
AND MY FAVORITE, KRUGMAN!!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugm…
I am a libertarian so my view is pure and simple- workers should be paid their fair market value. Unions exist to get their members a wage above where supply meets demand. This means that they are bargaining for wages and benefits they think are "fair". The problem is that "fair" is a relative term. More importantly, "fair" has proved to be unsustainable. Take a look at a quote from the first article:
Some public sector unions have contracts and benefits that are too rich for these times, but even when they have made concessions, Republican officials have kept up the attack. The Republicans’ claim to be acting on behalf of taxpayers is not believable.
Even though pay remains above free market rates, unions have tightened their belts so the author believes they've done their part. All is settled now- except states will still go bankrupt. Oh well, it's someone else's fault. This is the problem with negotiating on a "fair" pay package.
Onto the next one...
Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.
OK Krugmonster, thanks for prefacing your argument with a completely worthless paragraph. What's your point? They are still facing a budget crunch, are they not? By your logic, that 300 lb. girl is facing a weight issue, but her difficulties are less severe than those facing other more gargantuan chubbies.
The problem with liberal arguments is they eventually devolve into irrelevant points, emotional appeals, and relative, undefinable, or unquantifiable ideals (ie fairness, decency, equality). Speaking of irrelevant...
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Explain to me how it is relevant that wealthy people gave to Walker's campaign. He won the election, the Koch brothers did not buy it. It is all part of the Republicans' sinister plan to get rid of all poor people in the US, right? Unions funnel a ton of money to democratic campaigns as well. That's how elections work. In fact, unions are so well-organized and (until recently) well-funded that they exert far more power than their actual numbers would suggest. This is the power of an active, organized group, and the one area where I give unions props.
Anyways, feel free to agree or critique at your own will.
Milton Friedman, a staunch libertarian, was not against unions. His view was that unions should not have any special power/privileges granted by government. If people want to create union organizations, nobody should be allowed to stop them with the legal system. In other words, let unions and employers play out voluntarily, non-coercively, and decentralized.
Ummmm
Also
Show me anything Friedman said that was pro-union
I didn't exactly say he was pro-union. What I said, was that Dr. Friedman believed that unions and companies should battle out their issues in a decentralized way, where government completely stays out. So, if workers want to strike, Friedman would say that's okay (so long as they aren't on contract, and so long as the employer has the right to fire them, hire anyone else they please, etc.). What Friedman was against, was the way unions gain political power and increase licenses, increase the minimum wage, and various other means of reducing the competition for their labor. He says this quite clearly in "Capitalism and Freedom."
no unions!
I don't think unions should be outlawed. If a group of people get together to make their case as employees stronger, great. That just means the company that employs these people has to be prepared to hire and train a shitload more people at the drop of a hat. As a libertarian, I believe in freedom. That includes the right of people to organize. That includes the right of a company to fuck them. That does not include government backing of unions, or (as happened to one of my friends) losing hundreds of dollars a year to unions that didnt do shit and they were required to be a part of.
Id commodi culpa nihil et facilis. Vel enim adipisci sunt placeat tempore. Autem id fugit quasi deserunt excepturi sequi animi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...