So why is it that Republicans are so much better than Libertarians on the
freedom of association?
Dear Rob;
Hunh? I really don't quite get the question. And what's that freedom of association got to do with abusive labor unions and Republicans?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Rob Power <robpower@...> wrote:
So why is it that Republicans are so much better than Libertarians on the
freedom of association?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hunh? I really don't quite get the question. And what's that freedom of
association got to do with abusive labor unions and Republicans?
Unions are a form of free association, protected under the first
amendment. They are not necessarily "gangster-like".
When law gives them disproportionate power over their employers, that power
usually leads to corruption among union leadership. But the problem is the
law, not the unions per se. Libertarians are widely, and inaccurately,
perceived as anti-labor, and we need to work to change that perception.
~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Got freedom? Badnarik for President! <URL: http://badnarik.org/ >
G.W. Bush: working hard to put food on your family since 2001.
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Dear Chris;
I will pass that along to the author of the questionairre who was
doing a somewhat tongue in cheek political orthodoxy q/a test.
Although I do question describing unions as a " free association "
group. In numerous industries you do not get a job unless you join
the union and have dues taken from your paycheck whether you like it
or not. And have those union dues spent the way the union bosses
decide. And when is the last time you saw union bosses only getting
scale and not several hundred thousand dollars a year in pay?
No need to go into the Teamsters and their association with the
Mafia and the pension fund abuses therof. And just what really
happened to Jimmie Hoffa and it is true he's buried under the 50
yard line at the Jets stadium ois it under the goal posts?
By the way how does the First Amendment on free speech rights cover
free association for unions? Just try to say anything negative about
unions and how they jack up construction cost with their way out of
line no way free market labor costs in SF. Watch what happens to
YOUR free speech rights as a jack hammer is stuffed down your throat
sideways.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1>Hunh? I really don't quite get the question. And what's that
freedom of
>association got to do with abusive labor unions and Republicans?
Unions are a form of free association, protected under the first
amendment. They are not necessarily "gangster-like".When law gives them disproportionate power over their employers,
that power
usually leads to corruption among union leadership. But the
problem is the
law, not the unions per se. Libertarians are widely, and
inaccurately,
perceived as anti-labor, and we need to work to change that
perception.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I will pass that along to the author of the questionairre who was
doing a somewhat tongue in cheek political orthodoxy q/a test.
I got that the quiz was tongue-in-cheek, which is why I didn't carp about
it first time around. We do need to be careful about even tongue-in-cheek
pronouncements on a public mailing list, though (sadly). For a
hypothetical example, we are opposed to government welfare, but bashing
"welfare queens" sounds as though we're anti-poor, which is entirely different.
Although I do question describing unions as a " free association "
group. In numerous industries you do not get a job unless you join
the union and have dues taken from your paycheck whether you like it
or not.
True. You also usually don't get to name your own salary, nor pick your
boss or your hours (if you do, you're fortunate (this is why I work for
me)). The employer offers something - and perhaps it includes union
membership - and you take it, or not. That's the market.
Now, in a lot of states, the employer doesn't even have a choice about
making that offer. The problem there is the law, not the union
itself. Change the "closed shop" state laws, and you'll have more
options. The union will also have to keep a more balanced approach to
negotiations, rather than starting from a position of hostility from the
consequences of which they're protected by law.
By the way how does the First Amendment on free speech rights cover
free association for unions?
The first amendment also covers peaceable assembly, and has been
interpreted to protect association in general. I can hang out with you, or
not; I can form an organization with you, or not; and the law can't forbid
me to, nor should it compel me to.
The problem is that most unions would not survive in a free market
operating the way they do now. The solution is not to attack the unions,
but to attack anti-free-market laws.
~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Got freedom? Badnarik for President! <URL: http://badnarik.org/ >
G.W. Bush: working hard to put food on your family since 2001.
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Christopher R. Maden wrote:
The problem there is the law, not the union
itself. Change the "closed shop" state laws
And remove the exemption for unions from antitrust laws.
Brian Holtz
LP candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org
Dear Chris;
Anti-free market laws would have to be stricken as well as all anti-
trust laws. At the federal level the Taft Hartley and the earlier
Wegner-Taft-Hartley Act and the LaGuardia Act would also have to be
repealed. These laws are extremely bad governmental intrusions into
the free market place. They dictate union members must go back for a
cooling off period. This is governmentally enacted slavery by fiat.
They dictate employers must negotiate with a group of employees
based on some arcane formulas of representation. This is dictatorial
as well on the employers.
Locally and state wise numerous union lobbyist created laws would
also have to be struck down. As an example, in California, if a
construction project involves public funds then the prevailing
highest wages must be paid. Not the wages which could be generated
by competitive bidding. This was specifically written to prevent
builders from bringing in " cheap outside labor". This means union
wages.
And for some really badly negotiated union permanent lifetime
employment regulations just look at the prison guards union. Talk
about a fat-cat agreement bought with major political contributions
thank you Gray Davis.
Witness the recent brouhaha over a private non-profit group using
unpaid volunteers to do some wetlands restoration. A local cat
driver saw a volunteeer driving a cat and filed a complaint. The
State of Cal agreed and sued the non-profit for wages and unpaid
workers comp etc. because they did not pay their un-paid volunteers!
Then unions also have been known to shoot themselves in the foot and
spite themselves by cutting off their own noses. Union members get
it in their heads that they still own their jobs even though they
have stepped away from their jobs and those jobs will still be there
when they resolve the issues. You quite a job you are quite -
goodbye. If you do not like the pay and benefits go somewhere else
where you will get what you want. The employer should be entirely
free to hire whoever they want at whatever pay they want based on
what the market will bear.
This means any laws protecting unions must be stricken completely if
you are to have a free-market open shop competitive bid job market.
This means all local, city, county, state and federal labor and
employment laws.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1>I will pass that along to the author of the questionairre who was
>doing a somewhat tongue in cheek political orthodoxy q/a test.I got that the quiz was tongue-in-cheek, which is why I didn't
carp about
it first time around. We do need to be careful about even tongue-
in-cheek
pronouncements on a public mailing list, though (sadly). For a
hypothetical example, we are opposed to government welfare, but
bashing
"welfare queens" sounds as though we're anti-poor, which is
entirely different.
>Although I do question describing unions as a " free association "
>group. In numerous industries you do not get a job unless you join
>the union and have dues taken from your paycheck whether you like
it
>or not.
True. You also usually don't get to name your own salary, nor
pick your
boss or your hours (if you do, you're fortunate (this is why I
work for
me)). The employer offers something - and perhaps it includes
union
membership - and you take it, or not. That's the market.
Now, in a lot of states, the employer doesn't even have a choice
about
making that offer. The problem there is the law, not the union
itself. Change the "closed shop" state laws, and you'll have more
options. The union will also have to keep a more balanced
approach to
negotiations, rather than starting from a position of hostility
from the
consequences of which they're protected by law.
>By the way how does the First Amendment on free speech rights
cover
>free association for unions?
The first amendment also covers peaceable assembly, and has been
interpreted to protect association in general. I can hang out
with you, or
not; I can form an organization with you, or not; and the law
can't forbid
me to, nor should it compel me to.
The problem is that most unions would not survive in a free market
operating the way they do now. The solution is not to attack the
unions,