Walmart Strike

[Ender]

Perhaps you would like to retract your impulsive and condescending statement.

I am aware that unions create unemployment at the margins, raise labor costs to producers, lower producer output, and reduce social welfare inasmuch as we define this as the sum of consumer and producer surplus. Which seems to be the essence of your Lew Rockwell article.

As long as a union does not use force to prevent producers from hiring non-union labor, use force to limit mobility to or from union membership, or conspire with governments there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Unions can be peaceful and voluntary associations. I don't like them much, but neither do I like smoking or certain kinds of music. People are free to sell themselves and their labor as they see fit, and may discriminate regarding their associations with coworkers.

You are free to vote with your consumer dollars.

And the UAW can strike until all of the auto manufacturing moves to South Korea and Japan, and the only job for the U.S. auto workers is at the new Walmart that opens in their town.

My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawful.

All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.

In a free market society, a worker can leave a low paying job and go to a better one- the owners of businesses will increase pay if they need good workers. It is always product that drives the financial state of a country, not unions or fractionalized banking. These are manipulations for the few- not the many.

Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.

 

[Keith and stuff]

My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.

Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.

Walmart and Costco aren't even the same type of retail business. You likely meant Sam's Club and Costco. Even then, I've never met a unionized employee at any sam's or Costco I've even been in. I understand that some Costco workers are unionized but the vast majority aren't and Costco works to dissuade workers from unionizing. Anyway, Costco pays workers much better than Sam's!

 

[pathtofreedom]

My response is neither impulsive or condescending- I respect you- but you are wrong about unions.

Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawfuly
You fail to explain why they are mafia type organization. They began as people wanting to reject the poor conditions of the 19th century mostly for the purpose of less working hours. Codifying an organization does not mean there origins are government.
All unions use force- just try to work at a unionized business without joining. Unions do not increase wages overall and they help destroy the economy. The one reason Walmart is picked on continually, even though they operate no differently than Costco, etc. is because they will not unionize.
They don't use force. You can always choose not to join a unionized business employment is voluntary. IF you accept that you have to join a union you accept the anarcho-syndicalist argument that. Unions should be able to form closed shops.
In a free market society, a worker can leave a low paying job and go to a better one- the owners of businesses will increase pay if they need good workers. It is always product that drives the financial state of a country, not unions or fractionalized banking. These are manipulations for the few- not the many.
Unions emerged during periods of free markets. Fractional reserve banking emerged in free banking systems particularly under the age of the goldsmiths or in the free banking of the United States. Disliking something does not make it non free market.
Right to work states are much closer to real freedom than states that obey unions.

Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

 

[torchbearer]

Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

 

[angelatc]

Companies and corporations are sheltered too. Owners and shareholders don't get sentenced for manslaughter if their cheap or poorly maintained machines chew up one of their workers. They don't personally get sued if their oil rig explodes and destroys the gulf of Mexico. They don't have to pay anything if their products give people cancer.

That's not true either. Enron executtives went to jail. Wellpoint executives went to jail. Stanford Financial Group exectives are either on trial or in jail. An executive in AU Optroincs group was found guilty of price fixing.

I can go on and on, but there's no point. LIberals create talking points, and facts stand no chance in their wake.

 

[angelatc]

Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

LOL - again, the unions tried that line in Michigan and even the liberals laughed.

 

[angelatc]

Why would want people to be fired? People are free to leave they are also free to strike or form a union. Not everybody wants what is shoved down there throat. Not everybody wants to work for more than 10 hours a day. Not everyone wants to be a worker drone.

Oh, the "I should get everything I want!" position. Fact is, those people have every right to start a competing organization that creates a work environment they approve of. But they probably don't want to work that hard, either?

 

[ReasonableThinker]

The problem is that Unions don't go far enough. But before I get into all of htat, all of you Libertarian Capitalists must admit that Walmart is a creation of the State. If it weren't for paved roads and State-subsidized transportation then such a company could not exist, as no private road owner would allow for giant semi trucks to ravage their road every day for Walmart's sake. So localized retail spots, run by local people, would naturally take over where this artificial 'monopoly' known as Walmart left off. But regardless, a worker ought to have the right to own the means of his production and the right to elect their own management. The system we have no nicely falls into the category of 'slave wagery.' Introducing democracy into the workplace creates for a healthier, cleaner, and more economically feasible environment.

Unions began as mafia types and they remain the same. The only difference is now they are "legal"- which does not mean lawful.

One could say the same about the standard hierarchal corporations we have today, they evolved out of slavery and Neo-Feudalism. You could work your whole life, treated like garbage, never advancing in the corporation to a significant level, and basically work for 10 hours a day to put some extra cash into a wealthy capitalist's pocket. Whereas, companies like Union Cab are able to own the means of production and make a ton of money working a simple job like taxi driver. No parasitic capitalist elite needed.

sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

Once you work at a company, you ought to own it. You should become a shareholder and have an equal amount of power as everyone else at your level. Unions were evolving towards worker-cooperative prior to State intervening "Union busters" that mucked it all up. But this would be the end result if we could achieve such a thing:

 

[pathtofreedom]

LOL - again, the unions tried that line in Michigan and even the liberals laughed.

sorry but laws restricting a businesses and employees right to contract is anti-freedom period. Businesses should be able to form closed shops.

 

[EBounding]

Right to work laws are a form of government intervention and anti-freedom. You guys are funny your descriptions of unions being evil or monopolous reminds me of the leftist description of capitalists.

No, RTW laws reduce government intervention because they restrict the already existing legal force of forced unionism. If you don’t join the union in some states, the government forces the employer to deduct the equivalent union dues from your paycheck and give it to the union. How is that freedom?

 

[pathtofreedom]

No, RTW laws reduce government intervention because they restrict the already existing legal force of forced unionism. If you don’t join the union in some states, the government forces the employer to deduct the equivalent union dues from your paycheck and give it to the union. How is that freedom?

How is it pro-freedom to require an open shop? Businesses and unions should have the ability to form a closed shop. Also I don't support government intervention protecting unions or any other organization.

 

[ReasonableThinker]

@pathtofreedom

You are obviously a clueless douche, and a plant. There is not single libertarian minded, freedom loving individual, on planet earth that could or would endorse unions or strikes. They are un-Constitutional and a cancer on America. As much as I loathe Rush Limbaugh, he was absolutely right when he said that GM was nothing more then a pension/retirement company that makes cars. The unions destroyed GM.

For one, you are not a Libertarian. You're a Libertarian Capitalist that has an extremely tenuous connection to classical Libertarianism at best. Two, how the hell is a union strike anti-libertarian when the first libertarians were pretty much all unionized and constantly striking? Regardless, how is that even against libertarian capitalism? If you live in a neighborhood where you only have a few options to choose from concerning work, and if those companies are abusing their power in some way, then strikes are totally permissible. The fact is, if you wish to have someone work for you, then they are not a slave or indentured servant. They have a right to say how the company ought to be run, and collect the means of production just like anyone else. That's what the original free marketeers believed at least.

 

[ReasonableThinker]

Here's another success story of Market Socialism for you sheep. Oh wow look at this, a bunch of workers voluntarily getting together and thriving. And they're even making a decent wage:





BUT HOW WILL THEY EVER MANAGE WITHOUT A CAPITALIST ELITE RAPING THEM EVERYDAY?!?!?!?!?!!

 

[ReasonableThinker]

Private business has the right to hire any contractor to handle their labor force, be it a union or a contract house or an HR department.

Prove it. They don't have a right to shit. Companies like Walmart only survive due to the State's policies and in the absence of a State they would go under in a day due to lack of access to transportation. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a State-sponsored transportation system that allows for corporate conglomerates to wipe the fuck out of every single small business and then turn around and say "OH WELL. ITS DA FREE MURKET AT WORK." That is complete bullshit. Walmart exists and wiped out tons of companies because we allowed it with our tax money, the logical conclusion is that we should have a say in how it's run. And in my opinion, that would mean turning it into a worker co-operative similar to Mondragon Corporation in Spain (which has over 83,000 employees and is an international company). This will 1) make workers happier 2) help end wealth inequality, which is something even Austrians admit is a problem 3) pay the workers more money since they won't have to be wage slaves to some capitalist asshole for 40 years of their life.

 

[UWDude]

That's not true either. Enron executtives went to jail. Wellpoint executives went to jail. Stanford Financial Group exectives are either on trial or in jail. An executive in AU Optroincs group was found guilty of price fixing.

I can go on and on, but there's no point. LIberals create talking points, and facts stand no chance in their wake.

No you can't go on and on... ...and these executives are in jail for financial misdeed and misleading shareholders, not for being cheap and refusing to upgrade safety equipment or forcing... (Oh whoops, I forgot, nobody can force a worker to do anything according to anti-unionists, but somehow unions can force owners to do things) ...or forcing workers to work massive overtime in dangerous conditions that results in loss of life or limb. No executive has ever gone to jail for that. And that is what we are talking about, not financial tricks. We are talking about the safety of workers and the environment. (how many BP execs went to jail for Deep Horizon, remember 3 people were killed in that accident, and it call came down to a $20,000 upgrade that was ignored)


Say, what is the last good thing unions have done, anti-unionists?

40 hour work week? <<< OH noes! People should be allowed to work 80 hours a week for slave wages "if they want"
time and a half for over time? <<<how dare companies be forced to pay time and a half for making their workers work overtime! Freedom has been ruined for Mr. Pennybags!
Ending sweatshop child labor? <<Why does the state get to mandate what age children should be allowed to work? Freedom is dead! damn those unions and their child protection racket!
Requiring safety for workers? <<If a company wants to save money by putting its workers at risk of death and injury every day, it shouldn't be the state's business! Now get back in that coal mine tunnel, and never mind the rotting support beams!

 

[EBounding]

How is it pro-freedom to require an open shop? Businesses and unions should have the ability to form a closed shop. Also I don't support government intervention protecting unions or any other organization.

It sounds like you're assuming that businesses and unions voluntarily joined together to form a closed shop. That is not the case since the union has the benefit of the government force to monopolize the company's labor force. I don't really know of a business that would voluntarily restrict it's hiring choices though...

Right now, any union recognized by the Federal Government (NLR Act) is given the monopoly of labor for that company and can force employees to pay dues or fire them. This labor contract was not made out of free association; it was made under the threat of the government gun. Even if an employer and an employee have a private agreement, a third party (the union) can intervene by going to the federal government and demand the employee pay dues. I don't see how that's freedom.

 

[UWDude]

sorry, i have a right to work without a group of thugs demand i pay them tribute to work at a company they don't own.

If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you don't like it, you can just leave.

Unions negotiated a contract with the company, and part of that contract is they determine who works in the company now. Too bad. Company should have treated its workers better before they striked and unionized.

Costco doesn't have this problem. Do you know why? Because they learned from history; treat your employees right in the first place, or risk losing control of them to a labor union.

Such is life.

 

[UWDude]

It sounds like you're assuming that businesses and unions voluntarily joined together to form a closed shop. That is not the case since the union has the benefit of the government force...

How so? How often are the police lining up and forcing unionists into their sit-ins? How often are police coming in and enforcing picket lines? Where is this "force" coming from? If you look at history, government "force" REAL FORCE, not the baby force you guys talk about, REAL FORCE, like cops with guns and the sanction of pinkertons, has been anti-union.

Right now, any union recognized by the Federal Government (NLR Act)

Not true, not any union. Not true.

is given the monopoly of labor

Monopoly? How is that? Another company can open its doors and try to hire non-union workers, happens all the time. How is that a monopoly?

for that company and can force employees to pay dues or fire them.

Negotiated in union contracts. If the company didn't want that, it should have just kept letting its workers strike and tried to run on scabs. No force. Companies are just being forced to uphold their contracts. Not all shops are closed shop, and not all union contracts require all workers to pay dues.

 

[torchbearer]

If you don't like it, don't work there.
If you don't like it, you can just leave.

Unions negotiated a contract with the company, and part of that contract is they determine who works in the company now. Too bad. Company should have treated its workers better before they striked and unionized.

Costco doesn't have this problem. Do you know why? Because they learned from history; treat your employees right in the first place, or risk losing control of them to a labor union.

Such is life.

the union doesn't own THE FUCKING COMPANY!
they have become nothing but a gang of thieves.
i'm glad we ran their asses out of our state.
our standard of living has gone up.
the only company still plagued with the thieves in this state is P&G, and then, p&G ends up abusing temp agency work, and the union doesn't stand up for the worker, it stands up for the old timers, to protect their asses at the expense of the low paid workers.
every place the union has touched in this state became a crap plant, with crap production, and protective circles of privileged paid employees who did no work.

 

[UWDude]

Fact is, anti-unionists have simplistic world models, where they actually think strikes are just street theater, and that a company can run on scabs, just "fire them all and replace them".

Strikes are a real world way, free market driven way, for workers to band together and demand higher wages based upon their collective value. Just like one page from a book is worth far less than all the pages together, so too are workers worth less singly then as a whole.

And when workers go on strike, they are in no way obliged, by any sense of the word "freedom" to come back to work, just because they "agreed to work for a certain price when they were hired". They may have agreed at the beginning, but now it is time for a raise.

And when they risk their livelihoods to strike, you bet your damn ass they aren't just going to walk back to the negotiating table with their bosses and play softball with them. Going on strike is not a joke, it's not a game, and it's not a vacation. It is an incredibly vexing and stressful decision. And you guys expect these workers to play nice with their managers after their managers do anything but with them.

No, striking is the display of power and worth of the whole of the workforce in a company. And they can, and do use that power. And more power to them.