Other: Unions: Is Ron Paul anti-union? How will he protect workers?

[Unknown.User]

..

..

 

[erowe1]

Why does anybody think protecting workers is any of the government's business?

 

[TonySutton]

why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance.

 

[Keith and stuff]

He is pro-Right to Work, does anyone have further information other than what is on his website?

I know that he has people that used to work for the right to work group working on his campaign.

 

[specsaregood]

He is pro union; he thinks it is your right to associate with whomever you wish.

 

[Badger Paul]

"why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance. "

Exactly. If workers want to join a union great. If not, that's fine too.

 

[specsaregood]

"why is Right to Work anti-union? All it does is keep the union from having a monopoly on labor. It keeps the decision to join a union with the individual. It is the liberty stance. "

Exactly. If workers want to join a union great. If not, that's fine too.

In fact; such a union is more likely to stay honest and responsible to its members rather than to govt whims. I've met plenty of people that hate their own corrupt crony-unions.

 

[The New Deal Sucked]

In fact; such a union is more likely to stay honest and responsible to its members rather than to govt whims. I've met plenty of people that hate their own corrupt crony-unions.

Agreed. My mother is a Conservative (and almost Paul supporter now to boot ) and she is a special ed. teacher in NJ. She hates all the political BS the union sends her. If she had a choice she wouldn't be in it...

 

[brandon]

He is pro union and supports workers rights to organize.

 

[Pierre_M]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I believe he is against forced unions. There are jobs where you cannot be hired unless you join the union. Freedom of association goes both ways, free to associate, free to not.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[Pierre_M]

I thought the teachers union was that way. They couldn't do a thing for my father when the school he worked for ended his position, created a new one (the same thing, but with one extra class), and then hired an unlicensed teacher for it (The school managed to "lose" my fahter's application to claim there were no licensed applicants). But they could collect dues from every paycheck.

 

[Tannenzäpfle]

Whenever I explain the libertarian position on organized labor, I do it as follows:

The government should not do anything to hurt a labor union's right to negotiate, but it shouldn't hurt a business's right, either. If the government gets involved, the people spend time trying to get the government to fight their battles instead of coming to an agreement in an equilibrium. If you look at Detroit, the government gave a lot of favor to the unions and that actually destroyed a lot of the long-term profitability and competitiveness in the market. There is a place for unions in America. There is no place for politicians passing laws forcing people to pay union dues or laws that protect businesses from unions.

TL;DR: Make the government stop distorting the labor market so that unions and companies have to come to an agreement like grown-ups.

 

[Tod]

This whole video is particularly exceptional, but the union discussion starts at about 53 minutes...

[video=youtube;g-mVNYqNkZU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=g-mVNYqNkZU#t=3206s[/video]

 

[redbluepill]

This is a pretty good pro-union post from a libertarian perspective: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=753

I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree with it.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[bluesc]

Allowing for competing unions weakens unions by lessening their individual collective bargining power.

I watched the video and read some articles by Paul... This is one area I fail to see his reasoning on. The consitution permits government to look after the welfare of the populace. Ensuring just pay and benefits for labor seems like a good way to start.

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

Nobody is debating that there should be an accountability mechanism for fraud, cronyism, and corruption. I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

Note I am mainly thinking of private sector workers as opposed to public sector. Public sector unionization is an entirely different topic.

The general welfare clause doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Allowing for competing unions weakens unions by lessening their individual collective bargining power.

I watched the video and read some articles by Paul... This is one area I fail to see his reasoning on. The consitution permits government to look after the welfare of the populace. Ensuring just pay and benefits for labor seems like a good way to start.

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

Nobody is debating that there should be an accountability mechanism for fraud, cronyism, and corruption. I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

Note I am mainly thinking of private sector workers as opposed to public sector. Public sector unionization is an entirely different topic.

James Madison on the General Welfare Clause...

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If you expect individuals to bargin their own wages and benefits with private sector big business I invite you to look into the unionization efforts taking place at Walmart.

... I simply fail to see how the system under Ron Paul would allow workers to recieve just pay for their work.

What makes you think this is or should be a right? What if you start a janitorial business. Just starting, you are the only employee. You offer your services at $20/hr but after your startup, equipment, travel, licensing, advertising, and related costs, you are only making $2/hr. Your work is good and worth far, far more and you are charging enough, but you fail to make enough even after two years at it. Whose fault is that?

Realizing the folly and difficulty of starting your own business - face it, things ain't working - you accept an offer to work for an established janitorial company at $4/hr. It is double what you made on your own but some greedy capitalist is making $10/hr on your labor (assume her costs are $6/hour and the client cost is $20/hr).

What is she doing wrong? You have two choices: work for yourself at $2/hr or work for her at $4/hr. Eventually, you may have clients and contacts loyal to you and not your boss and it will be easier to start a company without some of the other costs (advertising, less travel or downtime between jobs). But why do you deserve more money from your future and past competitor. What gives you the right? Also, what if you suck at cleaning and your work is only worth $1/hr (far below the national minimum wage)? Do you starve or become a charity case? Are you allowed to work at various jobs for $1/hr until you find your speciality? No, you are barred from the legal labor market and forced to make ends meet with prositution or selling drugs or a kidney.

There are examples of corruption. E.g., you can't make cars or smartphones due to all the government entanglements with patents and FCC rules and all the regulations to make a car. You can argue that a government-erected barrier to competition exists and you would be right.

Also, to understand basic economic theory and history, you should realize that communism fails - in part - because it does not have a pricing mechanism:

Under communism, there is no price mechanism - central government decides how much of a particular type of goods should be produced and how it should be distributed. Source

Labor, and your labor in particular, is like any other product. If you are getting the wrong price, it is your responsibility to remedy that. Government will just screw up the situation. This is why real unemployment might be upwards of 20%.

 

[Unknown.User]

..