Economic: Jobs: What Does Dr. Paul Think Of Labor Unions

Fillbaxter

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
10
I was talking with my Uncle the other day and he asked me Dr. Paul's opinion on labor unions. I told him I didn't really know but our constitution gives the people the power to unionize. So I said he would most likely support them. Then he went off on how we need someone to breakup the labor unions like Reagan did. He said that labor unions get too greedy and demand too much and this causes the corporations to have fewer jobs and causes our work to be shipped over seas where labor is cheaper.

What would Dr. Paul say to this?

Thanks in advance for the replies.
 
RP would say it is not the federal governments job to be involved in business or labor.
 
People have the right to form unions; it is freedom of association. However, RP would not allow the federal government to take sides in a labor dispute, for example by not allowing companies to fire employees or hire replacement workers during a strike.
 
Thanks For The Replies

Thanks for the replies I now have a better understand of RP's position on union's. Basically the federal government has no constitutional authority over bushinesses and labor.

RP would say it is not the federal governments job to be involved in business or labor.

Not to divert the subject, but when you say the federal government is not to be involved in business or labor. What should it's role be regarding equal opportunity rights, if any at all?
 
Thanks for the replies I now have a better understand of RP's position on union's. Basically the federal government has no constitutional authority over bushinesses and labor.



Not to divert the subject, but when you say the federal government is not to be involved in business or labor. What should it's role be regarding equal opportunity rights, if any at all?

As currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, the Constitution does give the federal government authority over business and labor through the interstate commerce clause.

Without knowing more, my guess is that RP would be in favor of a hands-off treatment of labor unions, unless a situation arose where there was a strong chance of market failure (e.g. suppose that a labor union begins to enforce its cartel prices by intimidating dissenting members / non-members into not showing up to work).

As to whether the federal government's role in equal opportunity rights, my personal take is that the government should afford equal protection rights for all state and federal government-funded projects. Within the private sphere, however, I generally think that people should be allowed to do what they please, as long as they are transparent about what they do.
 
I don't think he would want the government involved with unions unless there was a situation where someone's rights were being violated.
 
I would say the second most pernicious thing that government does for unions, beside inflating in exchange for votes when the unions over price their labor, is the repeated raising of the minimum wage, virtually ensuring high unemployment for the poorest segments in society. The other bad thing is the strike threat enforced by physical violence against replacement workers; government powered unions are founded on this.

There is no need to smash unions, one simply needs to unprivileged them by revoking and repealing their corrupting special interest laws and legislation. People would be completely free to join or leave unions as they wish.
 
can anyone specify exactly what are the Special Interest laws and Legislation, my uncle who is a life long union member and democrat ask about ron paul's stance on Unions and i know he was okay with unions but just not forced unionism, but he started talking spanish to me when he said that unionism is not actually forced but if up to you if you want to get paid a shitty wage(right to work states) or get paid enough to get the bills paid (unions), honestly i let him have the cake but next round id like to have some leverage to actually have a conversation, i dont know much about unions except that right to work states have more job creation and my uncle agreed with me on this point except the fact that right to work have shitty wages, and you cant get the bills paid...is there anyone here that works in a union or anyone have a video that is like
union vs right to work 101 anything that can save me some web surfing, im okay with reading too. in the end he said he liked alot of what ron paul had to say, but he said when push came to shove he was going to protect his pension, and if MA was to go to right to work it would be all down the drain for him.
 
The federal Gov't has no authority in the free market, there is a restriction to the States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 
Well I don't know, but he seems to support right-to-work laws, which ban voluntary contracts between employers and unions to require union membership as a condition for employment (i.e. closed shop). This obviously isn't a libertarian position - no-one has a positive right to a non-union job, or any sort of job for that matter, and if employers want to require union membership, that's entirely their right to do so.

So I wouldn't know what his position on federal laws would be. Obviously he would oppose Wagner, but I would hope he would oppose Taft-Hartley as well. But I dunno.

Certainly forcing the break-up of unions would be an atrocious position for a libertarian to support.
 
Back
Top