shanek
10th April 2004, 11:34 AM
Labor unions can be a great thing, when they're formed voluntarily and membership is voluntary. But government granting monopoly status to them only harms workers. This op-ed details the reasons why:
http://www.liberty-news.com/showNewsletter.php?id=200404101&src=t2552
If you're a worker who isn't allowed to build cars, or deliver packages for UPS, or work at Giant, or teach, or work for a Federal bureaucracy, without being part of a union, then you're being forced to deal with a monopoly.
Of course, the Union managers will claim:
"But unions are supposed to help workers!"
...and most of us have heard this for so long that we assume it's true, even though we don't have any evidence to back it up.
The most obvious problem is that it's a lowest-common denominator trap. You don't get what you're worth, you get what the average worker is worth on the average task. Not only does this help the union bosses control the workers, but it's all they can do. They can't get a special deal that pays you what you're worth, doing what you're best at in that industry.
So anyone who's above average at any task (and most of us are above average at something) is going to get less than he deserves.
Average workers, though, don't get what they deserve, either.
Why?
Because they are forced (it's a monopoly, remember) to pay a new middleman, the "union", to get them what they could have gotten anyway. So they lose the money, and the personal freedom, and their right clearly to express their political opinion, all of which they have to surrender to the union management, and "gain" pretty much the pay they'd have gotten without the union.
So it's as if you were forced to join a "buyer's union", who'd set the prices and kinds of food you bought by negotiating with all grocery stores, banning you from shopping for sales, bargains, and the brands you might prefer to buy.
Well, at least below-average workers get helped, right?
BZZZZZZZZZ!
Nope, not even most of them.
See, now that the company has made a deal with the union, below average workers are screwed in two different ways:
First, the company cannot (or, if you prefer, WILL not, even if they could, those bad, greedy meanies) afford to pay average prices for below-average workers. Doing that could put them out of business, eventually (or at least anger their stockholders, including perhaps you).
In that way, union "average guy" contracts trap the inexperienced in poverty much like the minimum wage and other labor laws.
So they will now be against below-average workers, who otherwise could have gained the experience necessary to make a good living in the industry, starting out making what they deserve and then working their way up.
Second, the union bosses can't keep their power if the company goes out of business, so they will support this discrimination against below-average workers. And even if they do not fear damaging the company (they certainly seem to care little about that, sometimes), they will find supporting the anti-below-average-worker stance useful for increasing their own power.
They will talk about how much they wish to help, but will set up barriers to getting a job in the union, claiming it's for "quality", but of course it's not only to keep out workers who need to work their way up, but also to give them more power through handing out jobs like favors, where it gives them the most advantage, instead of fairly.
All workers also lose the power to choose the benefits they desire, while they're at it. Would you prefer stock options instead of vacation? Are you so young and healthy that you'd like to pay a couple hundred bucks for "catastrophic" health insurance, and keep the two thousand dollar deductable in the bank for emergencies, instead of paying (or having the company pay) three thousand for health insurance you'll probably not use any time in the next ten years?
Tough luck. You're dealing with a monopoly here, so nobody cares what you want.
And, while we're at it, you're not just getting ripped off as a worker, either.
Is part of your retirement in the market, directly or through some kind of retirement plan or mutual fund?
When you think about how (as everyone knows) unions screw companies, remember that the supposedly evil "owners" nowadays are YOU, and everyone else who plans on retiring with anything more than Social Security and IRAs.
And yes, the company can be hurt even while the workers are. As with many things, this is not a "zero sum game", where one side must be failing if the other profits. The union acts as an unnecessary middleman, taking away the power of both employee and employer to agree on individual deals which benefit both sides, so the union hurts both sides.
And, far more important, how about YOU as a consumer? Only a tiny fraction of all workers, fortunately, are stuck in union monopolies...but ALL people in the US are consumers. Unless their home is a log cabin and they live entirely off the land, of course.
So you, as a consumer, are going to pay higher prices, because the "greedy" owners will pass along any added costs and troubles (like strikes) to the consumer, as well as the workers. And any lower quality that comes from pay being linked to seniority instead of how good workers are also hits you, the consumer, squarely on the head, whether you work for a union or not.
Maybe something like "unions" could be good for some people...but not in the current situation, where they get to have a monopoly on a specific employer or industry, keeping you from working without their burden on your back.
Until then, the union rulers will act like any other monopoly, benefiting nobody but themselves.
http://www.liberty-news.com/showNewsletter.php?id=200404101&src=t2552
If you're a worker who isn't allowed to build cars, or deliver packages for UPS, or work at Giant, or teach, or work for a Federal bureaucracy, without being part of a union, then you're being forced to deal with a monopoly.
Of course, the Union managers will claim:
"But unions are supposed to help workers!"
...and most of us have heard this for so long that we assume it's true, even though we don't have any evidence to back it up.
The most obvious problem is that it's a lowest-common denominator trap. You don't get what you're worth, you get what the average worker is worth on the average task. Not only does this help the union bosses control the workers, but it's all they can do. They can't get a special deal that pays you what you're worth, doing what you're best at in that industry.
So anyone who's above average at any task (and most of us are above average at something) is going to get less than he deserves.
Average workers, though, don't get what they deserve, either.
Why?
Because they are forced (it's a monopoly, remember) to pay a new middleman, the "union", to get them what they could have gotten anyway. So they lose the money, and the personal freedom, and their right clearly to express their political opinion, all of which they have to surrender to the union management, and "gain" pretty much the pay they'd have gotten without the union.
So it's as if you were forced to join a "buyer's union", who'd set the prices and kinds of food you bought by negotiating with all grocery stores, banning you from shopping for sales, bargains, and the brands you might prefer to buy.
Well, at least below-average workers get helped, right?
BZZZZZZZZZ!
Nope, not even most of them.
See, now that the company has made a deal with the union, below average workers are screwed in two different ways:
First, the company cannot (or, if you prefer, WILL not, even if they could, those bad, greedy meanies) afford to pay average prices for below-average workers. Doing that could put them out of business, eventually (or at least anger their stockholders, including perhaps you).
In that way, union "average guy" contracts trap the inexperienced in poverty much like the minimum wage and other labor laws.
So they will now be against below-average workers, who otherwise could have gained the experience necessary to make a good living in the industry, starting out making what they deserve and then working their way up.
Second, the union bosses can't keep their power if the company goes out of business, so they will support this discrimination against below-average workers. And even if they do not fear damaging the company (they certainly seem to care little about that, sometimes), they will find supporting the anti-below-average-worker stance useful for increasing their own power.
They will talk about how much they wish to help, but will set up barriers to getting a job in the union, claiming it's for "quality", but of course it's not only to keep out workers who need to work their way up, but also to give them more power through handing out jobs like favors, where it gives them the most advantage, instead of fairly.
All workers also lose the power to choose the benefits they desire, while they're at it. Would you prefer stock options instead of vacation? Are you so young and healthy that you'd like to pay a couple hundred bucks for "catastrophic" health insurance, and keep the two thousand dollar deductable in the bank for emergencies, instead of paying (or having the company pay) three thousand for health insurance you'll probably not use any time in the next ten years?
Tough luck. You're dealing with a monopoly here, so nobody cares what you want.
And, while we're at it, you're not just getting ripped off as a worker, either.
Is part of your retirement in the market, directly or through some kind of retirement plan or mutual fund?
When you think about how (as everyone knows) unions screw companies, remember that the supposedly evil "owners" nowadays are YOU, and everyone else who plans on retiring with anything more than Social Security and IRAs.
And yes, the company can be hurt even while the workers are. As with many things, this is not a "zero sum game", where one side must be failing if the other profits. The union acts as an unnecessary middleman, taking away the power of both employee and employer to agree on individual deals which benefit both sides, so the union hurts both sides.
And, far more important, how about YOU as a consumer? Only a tiny fraction of all workers, fortunately, are stuck in union monopolies...but ALL people in the US are consumers. Unless their home is a log cabin and they live entirely off the land, of course.
So you, as a consumer, are going to pay higher prices, because the "greedy" owners will pass along any added costs and troubles (like strikes) to the consumer, as well as the workers. And any lower quality that comes from pay being linked to seniority instead of how good workers are also hits you, the consumer, squarely on the head, whether you work for a union or not.
Maybe something like "unions" could be good for some people...but not in the current situation, where they get to have a monopoly on a specific employer or industry, keeping you from working without their burden on your back.
Until then, the union rulers will act like any other monopoly, benefiting nobody but themselves.