# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Unions; Then and Now

## Son_of_Liberty90

Today, unions are frowned upon for being bloated organizations that stifle free market progress.

In public school, I learned that Unions fought for worker's right to weekends and safe working conditions. If this is true then obviously unions served a benefit to workers in the early 1900s.  Could workers demand these terms from their employers in a free market without the unions?

----------


## Dr.No.

Workers could of course make those demands...unions perhaps make those demands a lot more ironed and powerful.

In general, unions greatly benefit workers, but hurt the producer and hurt the customer. So in that sense, they are impeding a market's progress. On the other hand, workers with great benefits are able to purchase more goods, and perhaps become part of the producer class themselves...so in that way, they are enhancing the economy.

----------


## phill4paul

Unions started out as a worthy endeavor. Individuals got together to boycott a business or industry by using their labor to produce as a bargaining chip. Then some of those individuals said "Ya know I'm pretty good at this drawing people together and bargaining $#@!. It beats a 12-hr. day at the smelter. And these mooks are so thankful to me for getting them these concessions they'd probably give me some of their pay each payday." and so they went about creating a permanent structure. And then these individuals decided that not only do they have a membership they also have a voting block. And then these corporations said "Well, $#@!." We're gonna have to do something about this and they bought of the leadership. Around this time crime families also got into the business. And so with all this power the sons and grandsons of the individuals that started this business are prospering quite well as a "middle man."
  That's how I understand it anyway.

----------


## spudea

The right to assemble and organize is great for liberty.  Mandatory participation and payments of union dues is not great for liberty and has obviously lead to the abuse of power and corruption.

----------


## tod evans

Government unions.













Nuff said.

----------


## Cleaner44

> The right to assemble and organize is great for liberty.  Mandatory participation and payments of union dues is not great for liberty and has obviously lead to the abuse of power and corruption.


This.

Nothing else really needs to be said.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Today, unions are frowned upon for being bloated organizations that stifle free market progress.
> 
> In public school, I learned that Unions fought for worker's right to weekends and safe working conditions. If this is true then obviously unions served a benefit to workers in the early 1900s.  Could workers demand these terms from their employers in a free market without the unions?


You sure could and if you were valuable enough to the employer they might even listen.  But in general I think if the employer isn't offering work conditions that you like you should probably just GTFO.  The idea of refusing to do the work that one is employed for and then proceeding to march around out front of the establishment AS IF you still have a job seems silly to me.  At that point the employer should be putting an ad in the paper and the former employee should be picking up a paper to search for a new job.  Not that they can't march around like bozos if the property owner lets them... but it is not a proper way to interact with people.  It is no different than a consumer screaming and hollering that a business shouldn't charge some amount for goods.  Accept it or go.

I think modern day staffing agencies could serve the function much better in a free market.  The union view views everyone as equal... with those that have been there the longest being the most equal.  Whereas we know this is not true, different people will have different desires for safety precautions, work week, and wages.  And thus it fails both the employer and the employee.  A staffing agency functions with much more individuality though.  So instead of a prospective employee having to do 10's or 100's of interviews to find a employer that provides working conditions and wages that are satisfactory to them they could go to a staffing agency that has contact with many businesses of differing working conditions and wages and pair them with an employer that fits their needs.  And should the employer not provide the working conditions agreed to the employee could find work elsewhere through the staffing agency so as to be able to 'speak with their feet' with relative ease.

----------


## Danke

> You sure could and if you were valuable enough to the employer they might even listen.  But in general I think if the employer isn't offering work conditions that you like you should probably just GTFO.  The idea of refusing to do the work that one is employed for and then proceeding to march around out front of the establishment AS IF you still have a job seems silly to me.  At that point the employer should be putting an ad in the paper and the former employee should be picking up a paper to search for a new job.  Not that they can't march around like bozos if the property owner lets them... but it is not a proper way to interact with people.  It is no different than a consumer screaming and hollering that a business shouldn't charge some amount for goods.  Accept it or go.
> 
> I think modern day staffing agencies could serve the function much better in a free market.  The union view views everyone as equal... with those that have been there the longest being the most equal.  Whereas we know this is not true, different people will have different desires for safety precautions, work week, and wages.  And thus it fails both the employer and the employee.  A staffing agency functions with much more individuality though.  So instead of a prospective employee having to do 10's or 100's of interviews to find a employer that provides working conditions and wages that are satisfactory to them they could go to a staffing agency that has contact with many businesses of differing working conditions and wages and pair them with an employer that fits their needs.  And should the employer not provide the working conditions agreed to the employee could find work elsewhere through the staffing agency so as to be able to 'speak with their feet' with relative ease.


 Unions don't work for every industry. Which is what you're pointing out. I would say unions should not be allowed for monopolies like government. But in my industry,  safety is a big factor. And unions provide that nexus when dealing with the employer and bean counters. The customer doesn't realize it, but they are much safer flying on a unionized airline. Other airlines (employees and customers) that are not unionized also benefit from what the union airlines throughout the years have lobbied for wrt safety.

In my particular industry, airmail pilots were forced to fly in bad weather and other conditions and many died. That is why they unionized.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Unions don't work for every industry. Which is what you're pointing out. I would say unions should not be allowed for monopolies like government. But in my industry,  safety is a big factor. And unions provide that nexus when dealing with the employer and bean counters. The customer doesn't realize it, but they are much safer flying on a unionized airline. Other airlines (employees and customers) that are not unionized also benefit from what the union airlines throughout the years have lobbied for wrt safety.
> 
> In my particular industry, airmail pilots were forced to fly in bad weather and other conditions and many died. That is why they unionized.


I really don't see it as any different.  There are probably less piloting jobs than manufacturing jobs but if you don't want to fly in poor weather find another piloting job that suits your needs or find a new career.

In practice, if no pilots were willing to accept a similar job through a staffing agency the employer would be put in the same position.  Making _demands_ to an employer is improper just as making demands to an individual on how to use their property is improper.

----------


## Danke

> I really don't see it as any different.  There are probably less piloting jobs than manufacturing jobs but if you don't want to fly in poor weather find another piloting job that suits your needs or find a new career.
> 
> In practice, if no pilots were willing to accept a similar job through a staffing agency the employer would be put in the same position.  Making _demands_ to an employer is improper just as making demands to an individual on how to use their property is improper.


So you would be OK with airships (that includes drones, nuclear weapons carrying airplanes or fuel tankers, etc.) flying over your home unregulated?  Well, sorry, you are a small minority.

----------


## oyarde

> So you would be OK with airships (that includes drones, nuclear weapons carrying airplanes or fuel tankers, etc.) flying over your home unregulated?  Well, sorry, you are a small minority.


I claim my air space . No one may enter without permission . Permission requires a Toll .

----------


## Danke

> I claim my air space . No one may enter without permission . Permission requires a Toll .


How will you enforce your claim to that airspace, Injun?

----------


## oyarde

> How will you enforce your claim to that airspace, Injun?


I am working on my armed drone toll collector

----------


## Danke

> I am working on my armed drone toll collector


Oyarde trying to enforce his toll collection:

----------


## BamaAla

Sure they could. The better question is could unions survive without government help?

I'm not in Danke's field so I can't speak to that, but in my industry (non-residential construction,) unions would die tomorrow without government intervention.

----------


## Dr.No.

> Sure they could. The better question is could unions survive without government help?
> 
> I'm not in Danke's field so I can't speak to that, but in my industry (non-residential construction,) unions would die tomorrow without government intervention.


It really depends on what you consider government interference. For example, there was a classic case during a strike by GM workers in the 50s. The government largely stayed out of it. GM tried to intimidate and threaten the workers; they appealed to the government and the government stayed out of it. The workers took over the factory, and the owners appealed to the government, and the government stayed out of it. When GM hired a "private army", a collection of mob men and goons to attack the factory (reclaim their property), the governor sent in the national guard to prevent the attack.

The governor (whose name slips my mind) defended his decision by saying that threats, intimidation, and sit-ins were just a regular part of a strike; of a dispute between management and workers. But he saw actual violence as crossing a line.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> So you would be OK with airships (that includes drones, nuclear weapons carrying airplanes or fuel tankers, etc.) flying over your home unregulated?  Well, sorry, you are a small minority.


I think death can come in so many fashions that making an honest attempt at regulating away accidental death would be very disturbing.  There are people more well thought out on the subject than me here but I find that there is a difference between negligent action that causes death and action that is taken in good faith that results in death, and that the difference in how the individuals guilty of the separate actions are treated would essentially act as the 'regulation'.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Unions don't work for every industry. Which is what you're pointing out. I would say unions should not be allowed for monopolies like government. But in my industry,  safety is a big factor. And unions provide that nexus when dealing with the employer and bean counters. The customer doesn't realize it, but they are much safer flying on a unionized airline. Other airlines (employees and customers) that are not unionized also benefit from what the union airlines throughout the years have lobbied for wrt safety.
> 
> In my particular industry, airmail pilots were forced to fly in bad weather and other conditions and many died. That is why they unionized.


I never knew airmail was sent on its own plane. Always figured it was stowed somewhere on a passenger plane.

----------


## BamaAla

> It really depends on what you consider government interference. For example, there was a classic case during a strike by GM workers in the 50s. The government largely stayed out of it. GM tried to intimidate and threaten the workers; they appealed to the government and the government stayed out of it. The workers took over the factory, and the owners appealed to the government, and the government stayed out of it. When GM hired a "private army", a collection of mob men and goons to attack the factory (reclaim their property), the governor sent in the national guard to prevent the attack.
> 
> The governor (whose name slips my mind) defended his decision by saying that threats, intimidation, and sit-ins were just a regular part of a strike; of a dispute between management and workers. But he saw actual violence as crossing a line.


Government intervention = blocking right to work

----------


## juleswin

> Workers could of course make those demands...unions perhaps make those demands a lot more ironed and powerful.
> 
> *In general, unions greatly benefit workers*, but hurt the producer and hurt the customer. So in that sense, they are impeding a market's progress. On the other hand, workers with great benefits are able to purchase more goods, and perhaps become part of the producer class themselves...so in that way, they are enhancing the economy.


Just like most cartels, it benefits the people/entities lucky enough to gain membership but for the most part, it hurts everyone outside it. If the unions greatly benefited most workers, you wouldn't need govt laws to protect it.

----------


## Dr.No.

> Just like most cartels, it benefits the people/entities lucky enough to gain membership but for the most part, it hurts everyone outside it. If the unions greatly benefited most workers, you wouldn't need govt laws to protect it.


Meh, that is a nice line, but I am not sure how true that is. We all benefited from the 5-day workweek, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, other benefits, etc. These things tend to trickle down, if you will.

----------


## tod evans

> Meh, that is a nice line, but I am not sure how true that is. *We all benefited* from the 5-day workweek, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, other benefits, etc. These things tend to trickle down, if you will.


Maybe you did......

I own a shop and it's not possible for me to employ anyone else what with all the government rules-n-regulations.

Fie on working for any company!

Whaddabout governments "employees"? How do you feel about them and their unions? How about government mandates that GSA suppliers be unionized?

----------


## oyarde

> Oyarde trying to enforce his toll collection:


I thought I would use your place as one of my bases of operation , maybe cut you in on my spoils .

----------


## juleswin

> Meh, that is a nice line, but I am not sure how true that is. We all benefited from the 5-day workweek, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, other benefits, etc. These things tend to trickle down, if you will.


All that stuff you talk as benefit from the unions did not really come about due to unions. American society for whatever reason became more prosperous and mechanized economy(none of it is because of unions) and that is why you have 5 day work week, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, laws against child labor, work place safety laws etc etc. Take the prosperity away and I promise you all those benefits could disappear with it.

----------


## Dr.No.

> All that stuff you talk as benefit from the unions did not really come about due to unions. American society for whatever reason became more prosperous and mechanized economy(none of it is because of unions) and that is why you have 5 day work week, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, laws against child labor, work place safety laws etc etc. Take the prosperity away and I promise you all those benefits could disappear with it.


Perhaps. Maybe unions are the mechanism workers used to extract those benefits from the market? Unions were the mechanism for workers to get a share of that prosperity for themselves. You could even argue that unions themselves are a consequence of the free market...labor decided unions were the best way to get those benefits.

----------


## Danke

> I never knew airmail was sent on its own plane. Always figured it was stowed somewhere on a passenger plane.


Before passenger travel, airlines operated an airmail service. It was later developed into scheduled passenger service.  Now, passenger airlines do carry mail also.  But much is on dedicated cargo carriers like UPS and FedeEx.  Cargo carriers also can carry some  hazardous material that passenger carriers cannot.

----------


## oyarde

> I never knew airmail was sent on its own plane. Always figured it was stowed somewhere on a passenger plane.


Thats how it started out . The gold transfers now fly on a plane by itself.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Meh, that is a nice line, but I am not sure how true that is. We all benefited from the 5-day workweek, overtime pay, PTO, sick leave, other benefits, etc. These things tend to trickle down, if you will.


Funny, I have none of those benefits.

----------


## Zippyjuan

"We need more high paying jobs!"  Those jobs in the past have generally fallen into two categories. 
1) government jobs
2) union jobs

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

I think this discussion highlights the importance for a family compound that can take care of yourself and your loved ones for times that the labor market isn't offering anything acceptable to you.  More than any training the ability to provide for yourself gives you the greatest leverage in labor negotiations.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Perhaps. Maybe unions are the mechanism workers used to extract those benefits from the market? Unions were the mechanism for workers to get a share of that prosperity for themselves. *You could even argue that unions themselves are a consequence of the free market...labor decided unions were the best way to get those benefits*.


One does not necessarily follow the other.  How it is gone about is important.  If the unions get their power to influence working conditions by government it is a consequence of democracy.

----------


## Dr.No.

> One does not necessarily follow the other.  How it is gone about is important.  If the unions get their power to influence working conditions by government it is a consequence of democracy.


Even if that were true, one could argue that democracy/government is itself a consequence of the market. Basically, everything is a consequence of the market. .

----------


## r3volution 3.0

A union serves the same function as a business cartel: i.e. to restrict competition in order to raise prices.

And, like business cartels, they don't work in a free market, as it's impossible for them to effectively restrict competition.

There were experiments in voluntary unionism in the 19th century, but the unionists very quickly realized that they could not successfully restrict competition without the use of violence: against employers (to make them hire union workers), non-union workers (to prevent them from underbidding the union), and/or their own members (to keep them from leaving the union, or forcing them to enter it in the first place). Until 1935, such violence was carried out by the unions themselves, and was illegal; courts routinely and rightly ruled against unions for trespassing on employer property, beating up "scabs," etc. But then in 1935, Comrade Roosevelt changed all that, not only legalizing union violence, but giving it federal sponsorship. And so it's been ever since, much to the detriment of everyone but the union workers (and, ultimately, even to their detriment, as they tend to destroy the industries they parasitize) Incidentally, business cartels followed a similar trajectory; after many failed attempts at voluntary cartels, they wised up and sought (and eventually obtained) state sponsorship.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> A union serves the same function as a business cartel: i.e. to restrict competition in order to raise prices.
> 
> And, like business cartels, they don't work in a free market, as it's impossible for them to effectively restrict competition.
> 
> There were experiments in voluntary unionism in the 19th century, but the unionists very quickly realized that they could not successfully restrict competition without the use of violence: against employers (to make them hire union workers), non-union workers (to prevent them from underbidding the union), and/or their own members (to keep them from leaving the union, or forcing them to enter it in the first place). Until 1935, such violence was carried out by the unions themselves, and was illegal; courts routinely and rightly ruled against unions for trespassing on employer property, beating up "scabs," etc. But then in 1935, Comrade Roosevelt changed all that, not only legalizing union violence, but giving it federal sponsorship. And so it's been ever since, much to the detriment of everyone but the union workers (and, ultimately, even to their detriment, as they tend to destroy the industries they parasitize) Incidentally, business cartels followed a similar trajectory; after many failed attempts at voluntary cartels, they wised up and sought (and eventually obtained) state sponsorship.


So you don't think unions provided any benefit to workers in their early days? (eg safety conditions, weekends, etc)?

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> You sure could and if you were valuable enough to the employer they might even listen.  But in general I think if the employer isn't offering work conditions that you like you should probably just GTFO.  The idea of refusing to do the work that one is employed for and then proceeding to march around out front of the establishment AS IF you still have a job seems silly to me.  At that point the employer should be putting an ad in the paper and the former employee should be picking up a paper to search for a new job.  Not that they can't march around like bozos if the property owner lets them... but it is not a proper way to interact with people.  It is no different than a consumer screaming and hollering that a business shouldn't charge some amount for goods.  Accept it or go.
> 
> I think modern day staffing agencies could serve the function much better in a free market.  The union view views everyone as equal... with those that have been there the longest being the most equal.  Whereas we know this is not true, different people will have different desires for safety precautions, work week, and wages.  And thus it fails both the employer and the employee.  A staffing agency functions with much more individuality though.  So instead of a prospective employee having to do 10's or 100's of interviews to find a employer that provides working conditions and wages that are satisfactory to them they could go to a staffing agency that has contact with many businesses of differing working conditions and wages and pair them with an employer that fits their needs.  And should the employer not provide the working conditions agreed to the employee could find work elsewhere through the staffing agency so as to be able to 'speak with their feet' with relative ease.


'Take it or leave it' when it comes to ideal working conditions sounds nice in theory, but in practice if jobs are limited it might be more cumbersome to take on unless you're incredibly business savvy and can work for yourself. Obviously in an ideal situation the employee should have lots of skills that would allow them to jump to another employer if they didnt like what employer #1 was offering.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Even if that were true, one could argue that democracy/government is itself a consequence of the market. Basically, everything is a consequence of the market. .


That may be so as unjust as it may be, but in your post I was replying to you specifically mentioned *free* markets, which are only realized in the absence of aggression and force.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> 'Take it or leave it' when it comes to ideal working conditions sounds nice in theory, but in practice if jobs are limited it might be more cumbersome to take on unless you're incredibly business savvy and can work for yourself. Obviously in an ideal situation the employee should have lots of skills that would allow them to jump to another employer if they didnt like what employer #1 was offering.


I agree.  But the individual with that knowledge should prepare themselves accordingly and ultimately must lay in the bed that they have made for themselves.  To do otherwise is theft.

----------


## Dr.No.

> That may be so as unjust as it may be, but in your post I was replying to you specifically mentioned *free* markets, which are only realized in the absence of aggression and force.


But if a free market itself arises in aggression and force, is that not still a free market?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> But if a free market itself arises in aggression and force, is that not still a free market?


I'm not exactly clear on your question but as I understand it 'if the guys with the biggest guns decide to redefine what a free market is, would their definition not be true?', then no, it would still be a distortion of the free market.

----------


## Dr.No.

> I'm not exactly clear on your question but as I understand it 'if the guys with the biggest guns decide to redefine what a free market is, would their definition not be true?', then no, it would still be a distortion of the free market.


Why? How is he "redefining" a free market? By what measure do you say that force and aggression have no place in a free market if that is what the market produces?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Why? How is he "redefining" a free market? By what measure do you say that force and aggression have no place in a free market if that is what the market produces?


Sorry, not going to play this retarded game.  If you got something to say I encourage you to say it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So you don't think unions provided any benefit to workers in their early days? (eg safety conditions, weekends, etc)?


To _their workers_?

Sure, often they did.

Likewise, those corporations which managed to lobby well enough to acquire federal subsidies benefited their workers, and shareholders, etc.

In other words, theft can be profitable (for the thieves). 

But this doesn't make it good policy: not if one's interested in the well-being of society as a whole.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> To _their workers_?
> 
> Sure, often they did.
> 
> Likewise, those corporations which managed to lobby well enough to acquire federal subsidies benefited their workers, and shareholders, etc.
> 
> In other words, theft can be profitable (for the thieves). 
> 
> But this doesn't make it good policy: not if one's interested in the well-being of society as a whole.


But in the long run, didn't the push for weekends and safety condition eventually benefit all workers, not just union workers?

Obviously there's some misinformation with history about worker rights, but let's say unions never existed or developed around the industrial revolution.  Could workers themselves lobby the company for safer conditions or weekends without government coercion or would the solution for those workers to find other jobs?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> But in the long run, didn't the push for weekends and safety condition eventually benefit all workers, not just union workers?
> 
> Obviously there's some misinformation with history about worker rights, but let's say unions never existed or developed around the industrial revolution.  Could workers themselves lobby the company for safer conditions or weekends without government coercion or would the solution for those workers to find other jobs?


Competing companies to unionized companies often raised their wages and benefits to attract workers who would have otherwise gone to work for a unionized company. Toyota offers pay and benefits similar to Ford and Chrysler even though they are not union while the others are.  Other workers did benefit from unions even if they weren't members themselves.   The rise and fall of the US middle class has generally followed the rise and fall of unions (though what is the cause/ effect is not certain).  Less than ten percent currently belong to a union.

----------


## oyarde

The demise of the middle class has nothing to do with the consistent , minimal union membership but with the decline of good paying mnfg jobs that were replaced with lower paying service jobs with less benefits . You could easily make the case though that govt intervention in the market place is the cause of it . I seriously doubt in a free market , today that things would continue to decline but would improve.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Most of those good high-paying manufacturing jobs were union jobs.

----------


## phill4paul

> Most of those good high-paying manufacturing jobs were union jobs.


     And theye, the Unions, became a middle man that took money from their members. And the "organizers" did nothing more than what benefited the company, Unions rock!

----------


## Zippyjuan

Corporations and unions all have their pluses and minuses. Companies want to pay as little as possible to attract the labor they need so they can maximize their profits. Higher profits are not necessarily returned to consumers in the form of higher wages or lower prices- sometimes they go to the management and share holders.

----------


## phill4paul

> Corporations and unions all have their pluses and minuses. Companies want to pay as little as possible to attract the labor they need so they can maximize their profits. Higher profits are not necessarily returned to consumers in the form of higher wages or lower prices- sometimes they go to the management and share holders.


     Unions are awesome! They keep non-dues paying workers from...working. Does a middle-man really need to draw a full time salary?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Unions are awesome! They keep non-dues paying workers from...working. Does a middle-man really need to draw a full time salary?


Does your boss need to get 200 times what you do? Average CEO gets 200 times what the average worker does.  That is where your "good paying jobs" went.  Unions do have their issues but they try to get some of that back for the workers.

----------


## phill4paul

> Blah, Blah,  Unions do have their issues but they try to get some of that back for the workers.


 Unions didn't do $#@! to stop off-shoring of American manufacturing. theye collaborated with Theye, took their cut, and sold dues members down the river of home foreclosure.

----------

