Is There a Right To Unionize?
by Walter Block
Copyright � 2004 LewRockwell.com
I resist the notion that we have a "right to unionize" or
that unionization is akin, or, worse, an implication of, the right to
freely associate. Yes, theoretically, a labor organization could limit
itself to organizing a mass quit unless they got what they wanted.
That would indeed be an implication of the law of free association.
But every union with which I am familiar reserves the
right to employ violence (that is, to initiate violence) against
competing workers, e.g., scabs, whether in a "blue collar way" by
beating them up, or in a "white collar way" by getting laws passed
compelling employers to deal with them, and not with the scabs. (Does
anyone know of a counter example to this? If you know of any, I'd be
glad to hear of it. I once thought I had found one: The Christian
Labor Association of Canada. But based on an interview with them I can
say that while they eschew "blue collar" aggression, they support the
"white collar" version).
But what of the fact that there are many counter examples:
unions that have not actually engaged in the initiation of violence?
Moreover, there are even people associated for many years with
organized labor who have never witnessed the outbreak of actual
violence.
Let me clarify my position. My opposition is not merely to
violence, but, rather, to "violence, or the threat of violence." My
position is that, often, no actual violence is needed, if the threat
is serious enough, which, I contend, always obtains under unionism, at
least as practiced in the U.S. and Canada.
Probably, the IRS never engaged in the actual use of
physical violence in its entire history. (It is mostly composed of
nerds, not physically aggressive people.) This is because it relies on
the courts-police of the U.S. government who have overwhelming power.
But it would be superficial to contend that the IRS does not engage in
"violence, or the threat of violence." This holds true also for the
state trooper who stops you and gives you a ticket. They are, and are
trained to be, exceedingly polite. Yet, "violence, or the threat of
violence" permeates their entire relationship with you.
I do not deny, moreover, that sometimes, management also
engages in "violence, or the threat of violence." My only contention
is that it is possible to point to numerous cases where they do not,
while the same is impossible for organized labor, at least in the
countries I am discussing.
In my view, the threat emanating from unions is objective,
not subjective. It is the threat, in the old blue collar days, that
any competing worker, a "scab," would be beat up if he tried to cross
a picket line, and, in the modern white collar days, that any employer
who fires a striking employee union member and substitutes for him a
replacement worker as a permanent hire, will be found in violation of
various labor laws. (Why, by the way, is it not "discriminatory," and
"hateful," to describe workers willing to take less pay, and to
compete with unionized labor, as "scabs"? Should not this be consider
on a par with using the "N" word for blacks, or the "K" word for
Jews?)
Suppose a small scrawny hold-up man confronts a big burly
football-player-type guy and demands his money, threatening that if
the big guy does not give it up, the little guy will kick his butt. I
call this an objective threat, and I don't care if the big guy laughs
himself silly in reaction. Second scenario. Same as the first, only
this time the little guy whips out a pistol, and threatens to shoot
the big guy unless he hands over his money.
Now, there are two kinds of big guys. One will feel
threatened, and hand over his money. The second will attack the little
guy (in self-defense, I contend). Perhaps he is feeling omnipotent.
Perhaps he is wearing a bullet-proof vest. It does not matter. The
threat is a threat is a threat, regardless of the reaction of the big
guy, regardless of his inner psychological response.
Now let us return to labor management relations. The
union objectively threatens scabs, and employers who hire them. This,
nowadays, is purely a matter of law, not psychological feelings on
anyone's part. In contrast, while it cannot be denied that sometimes
employers initiate violence against workers, they need not necessarily
do it, qua employer. (Often, however, such violence is in
self-defense.)
This is similar to the point I made about the pimp in my
book Defending the Undefendable: For this purpose, I don't care if
each and every pimp has in fact initiated violence. Nor does it matter
if they do it every hour on the hour. This is not a necessary
characteristic of being a pimp. Even if there are no non-violent pimps
in existence, we can still imagine one such. Even if all employers
always initiated violence against employees, still, we can imagine
employers who do not. In very sharp contrast indeed, because of labor
legislation they all support, we cannot even imagine unionized labor
that does not threaten the initiation of violence.
Murray N. Rothbard was bitterly opposed to unions. This
emanated from two sources. First, as a libertarian theoretician,
because organized labor necessarily threatens violence (see Man,
Economy and State, pp. 620-632). Second, based on personal harm
suffered at their hands by his family (see Raimondo, Justin. 2000. An
Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard. Amherst N.Y.:
Prometheus Books, pp. 59-61).
We must never succumb to the siren song of union thuggery.
January 1, 2004
Dr. Block is a professor of economics at
Loyola University New Orleans.