The recent shake up of organized labor was explictly caused by the main focus of the union leadership being political involvement with the Democratic Party instead of membership building. It's almost the exact opposite of what we are just beginning to be going through right now.

The difference is, they're not a political party. Their main focus should indeed be membership and representation of workers who sign a union card without duress or fraud.

Whatever happened to freedom of association? Musta had a law passed against it.

Wsn't Gov. Gregoire able to steal this election because LP candidate Ruth Bennett was the balance of power? Would now be a good time for the LP of Wash. and the GOP to sit down and decide if there
was any power and influence the GOP could give the LPW in exchange for staying out of the next
governor's race? Maybe some maverick GOP legislator be unsupported in a primary race that a former LPer could win, and then change back to a Libertarian (ala at least one instance in New Hampshire). They might be willing to trade one
state legislator seat for a governorship.
Or something of more value than another resounding defeat for the LPW.

It is long past time to repeal the National Labor Relations Act and all similar state acts. Also, government should simply ignore government employee unions. Get rid of the damn civil service, and the government unions will be gone. Go back to Jeffersonian rotation in office.

Oh, and if the government employees strike, follow Reagan's example. Fire the whole damn lot of them.

Creech:

Actually, Ruth Bennett explicitly ran her campaign to the left to demonstrate that Libertarians could "take votes" from Democrats as well as from Republicans. This was to counter the myth that we're really "just Republicans in denial," or whatever.

We did some follow-up analysis and were able to demonstrate that this, in fact, happened. The reality is that if Bennett hadn't been in the race, it would have gone more strongly to Gregoire. After the first count, Rossi had accepted that Bennett's campaign had actually helped him and he made subtle suggestions that she might be appointed to an advisory role.

Of course, the goal was never to elect Rossi, just to show that Libertarians can affect the outcome either way. Unfortunately, many Libs up here have been holding a grudge over the idea that a Libertarian candidate would have a goal of taking votes from a Democrat. I suppose they must be closet Dems or something.

There's just no pleasing some people.

Closet Dems, or something, Travis? Actually, I think it's just the fact that there are Libertarians that hail from the Left, or are Left oriented, or both. Here in Humboldt County, CA, we have some registered LP voters that are so far left leaning, I'm surprised they're registered to vote as Libertarians.

My own feeling is that, especially in California, most Libs would be leaning toward the Republicans, as the Democrats in this state clearly lean toward Authoritarian on most issues. That may not be true in all states. Libertarian blogger, Tom Knapp, thinks the Dems are the more libertarian oriented in his state of Missouri. Looks like Washington is more like California. Still, it might be hard to convince a left leaning libertarian that they might have more in common with a Republican than a Democrat, especially after living thru these years of the Bush administration. The Bush administration is clearly not libertarian.

Travis: Then maybe the Wash. LP should go to the
Dems and offer to run to the right next time in
exchange for (name your prize)?

This si completely unrealted news, buy my God...

Remember the KeyLo decision?

First, their local government is only going to pay them what their house was worth in 2000, not what it is worth today, because the year 2000 is when they first declared it condemned, before all the litigation which happened leading up to the horrendous KeyLo decision.

Next, the government is going to charge these people 5 years back rent on their own properties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. How DARE anybody try to stand up to the government! We'll punish them!

How the hell could this happen in the United States? There should be a march on the local government of New London. Let's sit a few thousand people in those front yards and then see how easy it is to tear down thoseh omes.

PAUL P, Posted by: Paul P. at August 19, 2005 10:45 AM
THAT IS SO ARROGANT AND VERY SICK. Please do you have the acutal NEWS/WEB PAGE you got this from I am interested in that website. And please can you send that article to the National LP elective officials. They need to make that a headline post on here so it get notice very quickly.
This however does not suprise me though. This is just another example of what worse things to come if things are not change or put into action NOW.

Isn't it illegal to force people into labour unions. I thought that the "Freedom to Work Act" addressed that issue.

Don't have a news article for you unfortunately, I just heard about it on Boortz this morning. Checked his website and he doesn't have a link up on it yet. I'll see if I can find an article after lunch.

The article on latest Kelo news can be found at:

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

This is important! We really need to be vocal about this kind of nonsense!

To reply to Jason:

You are thinking of "Right to Work Laws". Most of the right to work states are in the south. However, right to work laws would not cover state government workers. In any event, I don't think Washington is a right to work state.

Creech,
Travis is correct, and it is not constructive to sit back and just be a smart ass.

I think Creech was in earnest and at any rate, let's all just take it easy. It's no good to see Libertarians squabble like Republicans and Democrats.

But... whether or not Creech was serious, it is time to think about what we can do to reach out more to Democratic voters, for two reasons. The first is that the party is in a really sorry situation, and I think many, many people within the ranks are frustrated enough to vote third party. Secondly, there seem to be quite a few socially liberal/economically conservative Democrats out there. Think about it - how many do you know? I know many. There are a lot of Democrats out there who are really liberal in the classical sense of the word and a lot who are, if the truth be told, more opposed to the IMAGE of the Republican Party, that of religious traditionalists, than anything having to do with capitalist economics.
But I do think we could do more to reach out to liberals. I thought Badnarik did a relatively good job of that.

I definitely don't want to any squabbling. I hate all seeing all that energy wasted. That was kinda what prompted my "closet Dems" statement. It's not that I find it odd that anyone would come to the LP from the left. What I find odd is that we have people who are *angry* because a Libertarian candidate set out to take votes from a Democrat - I mean, isn't it the goal of any politicican to earn all the votes she can? That one would use a tactic of taking votes from an opponent by highlighting one's strengths versus the weakness of that opponent is not "violating Libertarian philosophy" or whatever, it's POLITICS.

As for the suggestion of offering to run to a particular side in exchange for some policy considerations - I think that's an okay tactic if you're not poised to win. I'd prefer going to the highest bidder. Whichever side is willing to grant us a political voice - like giving us an unofficial "veto" power to block particularly nefarious legislation, for example - should be given some assurance that we won't target their issues as heavily. Granted, we don't deny any positions we hold, we simply agree to accentuate others.

In the end, however, such tactics are only a temporary and insufficient fix. What we really need to do is get serious about running good, qualified candidates that are at least plausible in the eyes of the public. Our tendency to run just about anybody for office discourages legitimate candidates from running on the LP ticket. Why would a person with a shot at politics agree to be lumped in with a person, however sincere and upstanding, who is not qualified for the position for which they are running?

By constantly running unqualified candidates, we not only lose in the short run - we demonstrate to the public that we are unable to make good judgement calls. I mean, how long would you keep an HR person on your payroll who always hired the first person who walked through the door (or past the window, for that matter) instead of seeking out the right person for the right job?

More on the topic of the original post, and to confirm Mark B's intuition, Washington is not a "Right to Work" state. I have mixed feelings about such laws in the private sector, but when it comes to state jobs it absolutely frustrates me that taxpayers get stuck with the deficiencies and corruptness of union labor.

HERE IS AN OLDER ARTICLE THAT YOU might find interesting.
HERE is a part of the Article.
BUSH ... had an entire 13-acre neighborhood moved -- well, flattened -- so that he could build a new ballpark for the Rangers.

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles3/bush_and_eminent_domain.htm

THE UPDATED ARTICLE REGARDING the Kelo and New London Eminent Domain. It is very interesting how they want to collect back rent which is very high and yet they don't want to pay these people what the property is worth. On one hand they say it not worth that much to pay them and yet they contradict themselves but asking for a high back rent. It looks to me the goverment made a mistake. Do the Kelo Attorneys realize this?

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000

The Democrats have been the pro-union party since the FDR and Truman administrations. The Democratic Party has had a interesting history, but the Democratic Party can never be a Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party has our own unique prespective towards politics and no one can ever duplicate that. We need to have a incremental strategy, not a total change. The Libertarian Party was formed to represent the Libertarian Ideology. If we dump Libertarianism entirly then we would not be the Libertarian Party. The incremental strategy is best because we have a mainstream appeal without getting rid of Libertarianism. Some Libertarians want to change the party and dump our ideology entirly because they have a misperception about the American Mainstream. The American Mainstream does not advocate Socialism, There are surveys saying most people want smaller government. The smart way is to gradually implement Libertarianism into mainstream society.

HERE IS AN OLDER ARTICLE THAT YOU might find interesting.
HERE is a part of the Article.
BUSH ... had an entire 13-acre neighborhood moved -- well, flattened -- so that he could build a new ballpark for the Rangers.

Posted by: FOR FREEDOM at August 20, 2005 12:30 AM

The lead in sounds like, "Air America Radio!" Entertainment for koolaid drinkers, not information!

In a recent decision from the Supreme Court upheld that government may purchase, imminent domain, private property and sell it to another private individual that is not what happened in Dallas for the Rangers Field. That transaction predated the recent court decision.

Dallas wanted the Rangers and the Rangers needed a new ballpark. Guess what! They made a deal like the one in Houston with the Astros and the Hooks in Corpus Christi. Municipalities all over the country have built stadiums to attract or keep professional sports teams.

I have been a union man for 34 years. I was pres. of local 415. B.L.of E. and I can see that you people don't know a thing about unions. Unions represent the working man against the corporations and the government. Yes, the government. You know the government, that is of corporations by corporations and for corporations. So unions give money to candidates without the members permission and corporations do the same without the permission of the stockholders. So the Libertarians say we should wipe out the unions and let the corps. have total control. Well you will probably get your wish. It's to bad that none of you know anything about unions. You'll miss them when their gone. When the individual can represent themselves against the corps.,be fired for no reason, have their pay cut, benefits cut, or lose pensions.
NEW SLOGIN, LIBERTARIAN, THE PARTY FOR SLAVE LABOR!!!

Libertarians are certainly not for wiping out unions. However, we do recognize the right to free association and the right to freely contract. Both rights are compromised by current Federal labor laws. I will not list the whole litany of abhorent legislation. However, the National Labor Relations Act essentially FORCES employees to accept a union as an exclusive bargaining agent, even if they don't wish it and would prefer another bargaining agent or would prefer to bargain directly. Violation of freedom of association. The Act goes on further to specify a coercive bargaining scheme, thus violating the companies right to freely enter into contracts and not to be coerced into contracts.

I have watched once great airlines drug down into insolvency under the heavy weight of union's extravagent pension plans and health plans, while upstart carriers do very well in the market.

If workers wish to VOLUNTARILY form unions and companies wish to VOLUNTARILY recognize them and FREELY bargain and contract with them, go right ahead. Just get rid of the coercive aspects of it.

Posted by: STOCKMAN at August 20, 2005 02:13 PM
Regarding the ranger ballpark eminent domain issue, just because something occurs frequently this doesn't make it right or say anything about the morality of the issue. Slavery was once common, and rapes happen all the time.

A good test use is: would the same action be morally acceptable on a person to person basis? Would it be ok for me to tell you I that I want your property and that I am going to tell you what I am going to pay for it. If you don't like that scenario, then it's probably not ok for a number of us to do the same thing. It's just bullying.

DONN, I KNOW a lot about UNIONS, I won't say on here exactly what my position was at this time in the UNION but I was of high status. I will tell you this. Depending on who is elected and who does right in the union, it can hurt a lot of people, such example, as people in the Grocery stores who ended up getting less after the debate was over. Such places make you pay for Union dues whether you want to or not and it can be expensive. There are funds that are not used correctly and taken advantage of just like the Government. I have also seen people who do poor representation for some who lost jobs that didn't deserve it as well as people who had representation that should have been fired. There is a whole lot more that goes on, but I have said enough. While the Union is suppose to work for you. I have seen to many cases where it doesn't.

Mark B.
YOur theories on labor sounds like a person who has never worked in a factory. I am a locomotive Engineer and the railroad is a very dangerous industry. Everyday I see railroad enthusiasts
(Foamers) along the right of way taking pictures and recording locomotive sounds. These people would work for the railroad for free, under any conditions. So your position is to give them the right to contract to the work at any wage and any condition. If a factory worker is willing to work machines with no safety guards, that's his right. If he chooses to work long hours at a dangerous job, that's his right. If he wants to join a union that's his right, too. RRRIGHT!
LIBERTARIANS: NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD THEORY!

I can't believe people are forced into paying money to unions and alot of times the people who pay the money to the unions do get protection from corporations. I have heard of union intimidation and violence imposed on people who don't want to be part of union. If this is right ,then some unions are acting like criminal organizations than helping society. It can be debated between socialists and conservatives and libertarians alike.

Some union leaders violate their union constitutions. My union did. They tried to merge with another national union and pad their pockets at the same time. This didn't sit to well with the membership, especially us on the left coast.
First we got mad. Then we got motivated, got a lawyer in Washington D.C.,raised $25,000 for the retainer, and sued our own union. The court found in our favor and ordered the union to pay our legal expenses. No merger of the unions and no big payday for our now ex-union leaders.
My point is, If your union is operating outside its own bylaws get off your dead butt and do something about it.

I'd really like for libertarians to stop pretending that the average worker has anywhere NEAR enough leverage in the workplace to "bargain" for damn near anything. 99% of the time, nobody that works in the private sector without some type of labor/union bargaining has any power to do anything against management directives WHATSOEVER.

If you do get uppity and start complaining, you're labeled as a "problem employee" and fired for a bogus reason. I signed a union card in the Reagan Admin timeframe becuase the place I was working at was giving out 5 cent an hour raises after 4 years service, making people work on their breaks, falsifying time cards, and they allowed a drunk who would go out on lunch and get blasted ( who was my direct super, I followed him one day right to the booze)
to work on the Execs cars out in the parking lot on work time ( he was a drunk but he was a good mechanic).

Bottom line was: they paid informers who would attend the union meetings a dollar an hour raises to sneak the meetings, report back to them who was there and who was involved, then every single person who had signed a card was systematically fired over a 6 month period.

The automatic knee jerk "private enterprise" worship among libertarians is misplaced. Not all institutiona are evil becuase they are public, and not all business is wonderful becuase it is privately owned. Judge each according to what they actually do and how they do it. You can find BOTH either working for freedom or against it.

These days, mostly against, in both cases. :/

Timothy,

When asked, the chief financial officer of my employer, a multinational corp., why my classification had seen no pay increases in a couple of years he said. "So long as we are fulfilling our human resources requirements there is no justification to spend more of the stockholders money in doing so." Since there was a surplus of people ready to fill my position, I surmised I best re-train myself for a less competative job and change companies.

I was checking out the LP for the past couple months and realized it's not for me. I mean, I'm kind of a liberal-libertarian, but still liberal enough to not fit in here. I respect all of your positions, but I don't think laissez-faire will ever work; people become too corrupt too easily. Remember, we don't have laissez-faire anymore because 99% of the population of this country were in the poor class, with no way of getting out. The other 1% _owned_ this country. While I do think the Dems go way overboard with a lot of their policies (I am, after all, libertarian leaning), I think some actually help. I'm appalled by the constant "Dems can't do anything right, they're evil" that I hear on this blog. It just sounds like every conservative in the nation. I know some of of you attack Bush, whom I don't support in the least, but that's one way the Dems are really screwing up. There's been a total conservative shift in the public, and it could have been avoided if the Dems chose their battles instead of accusing Bush of everything. It's gotten to the point that I can't admit I'm sort of liberal in some places. I don't think it's fair for the conservatives (mainly Rush Limbaugh) to call the liberals communists, and for libertarians (many of you) to call them all socialists; I don't think that by making some laws to help the working man they classify as communists or socialists. I know socialism. My city of Wyandotte, MI _is_ socialist. We're the only city within a hundred miles of Detroit (we're only a couple miles south of it) that doesn't use DTE's (a private company) electricity, or the other services (i.e. gas, water, etc.) that they use elsewhere. Our city owns the only electric company in the city, as well as the only cable service, only water and gas services (even cable internet). We can't even get comcast cable if we wanted to. I'm no socialist, but it's not bad living here. I know there's extremes of all political ideologies, and there are communists and socialist who are grouped into the "left," but that doesn't make Dems communists or socialist.

Now, if I know this blog half as well as I think I do, then you're all going to attack me big time. Please, don't. But, if you must, you must. Have fun.

Yes, Nate, you're right, most people on this blog for some reason or other (perhaps they're not secure in their libertarianism) are constantly talking as if they urgently have something to prove through their emotionalistic and self-righteous comments. If you don't get attacked, it's only because all these folks are going to PROVE YOU WRONG.

I think you should think about and read up on the history of American laissez-faire capitalism. I was brought up in a family liberal to say the least. But I remember in my freshman year US history class reading that the extremely capitalistic 1800s saw the explosive rise of the new middle class and a population boom to be explained only by a massive increase of production (this is where the new ghettos came from: people who would have starved survived and worked as laborers)... and then every history books moves on to the absolute necessity for changed seen by progressives because of the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few (even though the young history of capitalism has just been described as the exact opposite of that through the arrival of the new middle class) and because of the tyrannical railroads... who, it is not mentioned, were some of the most heavily subsidized and government-supported companies this country will (hopefully) ever see.

Just keep in mind that even when sources try to be objective, so many times, "what everyone knows" is left unexamined and is never realized to be false. That doesn't mean you have to be a jihadist like the guys on this blog though.

Six hours has gone by and no attacks. I think you're right, Mat.

A good libertarian _never_ allows a little thing like history and facts to get in the way of making sure they are 'right'. :D

I support *voluntary* workers unions. Freedom of association and disassociation should apply equally to capitalists and workers. What I don't support is the constant arms race of political favors for one side and then the other. First capitalists get limited liability, subsidies, and protectionist tariffs; then when they inevitably get too powerful as a result, workers demand their own special privileges, and so on and so on. Like any arms race, the main beneficiaries are the arms dealers--in this case the politicians--and they are happy to fan the flames of aggression.

I get frustrated with Dems because they have noble ends but see only flawed, statist means to get there. If they would just take a step back and look at the previous round of corrupt and interventionist policies that created the problem in the first place, they would understand Libs like me a lot better.

Congrats to Timothy West. It's good to know someone understands the importance of unions and can still be a Libertarian. Being a person who was involved in (TQM) total quality management, I love to here all these great theories. We will never know if they will work or not because we have alianated so meny people that we will never be elected to a position of any power. We have the freedom to be condisending (meaning talking to people like there stupid) without having to show any results ourselves. This is what makes this party so great. I love it.

Donn,

Without the union movement, we would all still be working for a buck a day, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. At least most of us would.

The study of the labor movement is required reading for libs, mainly becuase the study of how they got so much of their platform enacted into law is worth studying for parallels to our current situation.

If we could find the libertarian Eugene V. Debs who has his skills in oratory, we would go a long way. His speaking skills have yet to be equaled in america, 110 years later.

The trouble with the union movement, is that much of the leadership still has a 1930's big government mindset. They still stubbornly back failed statist programs. At least some unions have at least realized some change is necessary, breaking away from the AFL-CIO and forming a new organization. We shall see what happens with that.

The major problem with unions is that they inevitably become a major anchor upon the companies which are under their control. Unions greatly limit the flexibility of companies to confront new realities, by tying them to older standards. The work rules imposed by union contracts and the infamous seniority system is also a major drag on companies. Worst of all is when companies are going down for the count and the unions absolutely refuse to budge an inch. It is why the old established airlines are fighting for their lives while newer companies are thriving.

There are many things that would help workers much more than unions. Eliminating the big welfare state and reducing taxes accordingly would soon bring about a full employment economy, where even average laborers could command a decent wage. Instead, the bloated government drags down the economy and produces the unemployment which in turn gives employers greater advantage over employees.

Unions can be a great asset to the workers and the economy at large. However, Government employee unions are a horrible idea. The reason is, they can face no competition whatsoever and their income source is tied not to profits or industry viability, but to taxpayers suffering. Even that Commie FDR opposed goverment employee unions. And forcing somone to join or pay into a union is a violation of their rights

Of course, I support the existence of unions, but I think you overestimate their influence on wages, Tim. I'm just some kid in college so I'd be glad to be persuaded by an argument if you gave it, but without unions, wouldn't wages sink to the natural market price of labor - which seem to me like they would be higher than a buck a day? I learned in Econ that in markets with many participants, prices find a "natural" level which no one buyer or seller can influence.

I most definately agree with the last poster regarding GOVERNMENT unions. Of course, government workers should be free to associate into unions if they wish. But the government should not recognize them or bargain with them in any way.

Government office should NOT be a career. It should be a temporary detour on one's path in life. A tenure of nor more than four years and then back to the private sector. Legislature's should set the pay of these offices and the prospective employee's should either take it or leave it.

Abolish government recognition of and bargaining with unions, more importantly, abolish the civil service system.

Timothy West,
A Libertarian Eugene Debs. I do not believe in mixing Libertarianism and Socialism together. It is a weird mix. I may advocate Lobbying Reform, but I am way more Libertarian than socialist.

I didnt mean a "Socialist Libertarian" literally, for god sakes! I meant someone with his speaking power. He was probably one of the greatest political speech makers of all time.

I take inspiration from a lot of famous people in the past who dont have a THING to do with libertarianism. I admire Debs for his labor actions which I believe were needed AT THE TIME, and admire him for his oratory skills. I dont share many political beliefs with him.

MARK I disagree with your comment on abolish the civil service system. While improvements can be made. I will tell you this if it wasn't for the civil service I would NOT HAVE A JOB. Because I was turned away due to the fact of my religion, my disability while my skills are above and beyond the average person.
I actually had to sue a company due to discrimination against my disability.(Which I won) It has already been proven that my skills are above and beyond. But I was ganged up on by other people in the office and tormented due to my disability and I got comments that I should be on SSI which by the way,I am not disabled enough for SSI. I would be on the STREETS if it wasn't for the civil service. I had my share believe me. But I am noooo free loader.

I know this has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, but I see the religious head of the neo-conservative movement was advocating the assasination of Hugo Chavez. If you ever wanted to see what the heart of the neo-conservative movement is all about, this is it. Advocating murder if necessary to accomplish its goals. Granted Hugo Chavez is a slimy, communist scumbag and I doubt anybody would miss him, but still.

Posted by: True American at August 22, 2005 10:08 PM

That is nonsense. While I applaud you on taking on discrimination, you should not limit yourself by believeng that you can only get government jobs.

As for Chavez, I never weep over the prospect of a dead commie. Let's hope some unfortunate accident befalls that pinko.

True American-
It is not the government's role to provide people with jobs.
I think you guys are wrong about the "right to work states" these laws are very anti-libertarian. What do these laws do, it states what unions and companies can and can't put in a contract. Since when does libertarianism support government intervention in the market place. If one of the terms that a union wants is a "close shop" and the company is willing to take this term why should the government get involved?

Matt:

The state "right to work" laws are a counteraction to the NRLB at the federal level which forcibly compels companies to recognize and bargain with unions against their will. Companies are FORCED to accept these union shop clauses by the NLRB. What the state right to work laws do is at least give the individual worker a way out.

If the National Labor Relations Act was abolished, unions and companies could bargain contracts without duress, and, at that point, right to work laws could be dispensed with.

TO: FOR FREEDOM

When, "the people", agree for their government to build sports stadiums one could equate that to providing buildings to house a Toyota factory. Either easily qualify as local economic development projects. While others just think government should not do such developments, the Looney left claims there just must be corruption somewhere and soulds an alarm to attack their most evil enemy, a president serving in his second term. These outbursts recieve the credit and attention they deserve.

What alerted me was the heavy bias of the lead-in about the development of some property by the municipal government of Dallas, Texas. The proposal was placed on the ballot, the residents voted approve. Such transactions are not unethical, illegal, or imoral. They are just proposed developments until they are authorized by the people that will pay for them.

Personally I voted against that project for in my view public revenue should not be used to create facilities to entertain the taxpayers. That would include, The Museum of Fine Arts, The Opera House, Imax theater, Planetarium, Theater of the Arts, Etc, where I prefer to be privately supported. However obviously I do not hold a majority view. but I can live with that!

Mark B.-
I agree that we should get rid of NRLB but companies are not "forced" to agree to a close shop. In fact the "negotiation in good faith" part in the NRLB has done very little to save unions in America, membership has droped to around 10% of the workforce.

A Socialist society with Libertarianism would collapse because Socialism is a command economy. A Command Economy is where every ascept of the economy is controlled by the state. The only economic society that works with Libertarianism is Free-Market Capitalism. Pat Robertson wanting to have Hugo Chavez assignated. I do not like Hugo Chavez' Communist government, but trying to coup other nations leaders in past have always gave the US more enemies because of actions like that.

To: matt

My understanding of the Texas right to work law is simply:

The worker may not be required to join a labor union in order to perform work. (He has a right to work) Conversely a company may not be not forced to hire only union labor. (He has a right to hire anyone he sees fit) Therefore both may make individual choices as to their best interest. One result is Texas has, open shops, union shops, and combination shops. If you aren't happy with that there is always California to the west about 1,500 miles!.

When working on a federally funded project often the Taft Hartley act (left over from the depression days) is in play and the prevailing wage rates must be paid. This allows labor unions with higher wage packages to compete. The NLRB is expected to survey to establish the regional prevailing wage rates area but unless challenged they just use the local union rates in the bid documents.

Unquestionably Americas labor movement changed job conditions and wages for the better and should be credited for having done so. However the coercive nature, work stoppages, lock outs and strikes, picket lines, shrike busters are all quite repulsive to me.

My opinion is, if the market will permit, and the company management does what it should be doing, their employees will not join a union.

"TOYOYA Motors"

DAVE CATTIE at August 23, 2005 05:24 PM

LET ME PUT it to you this way, again as I said before without repeating my whole post. If it wasn't the Civil Service I WOULD BE OUT on the STREETS. I say this with good reasons. Unless you have been in my shoes and seen and experience what I have been through you wouldn't say on your post what you just said. I also have known a lot of Veterans with disabilities who are homeless after having pieces of themselves blown apart. A lot of private agencies will not hire them in spite of the ADA act. Because they feel they will handicap their companies.
People who have disabilities that are in the middle do not get hired for the same jobs of those without disabilites it is twice as hard not only to get the job, and even harder to keep it. The other thing is if you are not disable enough you CAN NOT qualify for SSI, as well as the fact you couldn't even go to war even if you wanted to because in the Government eyes, you are the Four F. So in the end no one wants you.

STOCKMAN, I agree with you, the Museum of Arts, The Opera house while very beautiful should be supported privately. I think hospitals are more important. The most important neccessity is food for our well being, a home that is comftable with a loving family, clothes to keep us warm, health care, our peace of mind. Everything else is just luxuries. Extreme wealth cannot buy us happiness, love and warmth. My grandmother use to say, you can have a simple cookie and enjoy it or you can have an expensive steak and choke on it.

OK LISTEN UP.
on this site they are trying to get people ideas on who would be voted in for President. I DON'T see a LIBERTARIAN listed here. common people we need to get going.
http://www.newsmax.com/poll/condivhillary/?af_id=1307

Stockman-
This law prevents by FORCE the term of "close shop" to enter a voluntary contract between a company and it's workers.That violates the worker's rights to fully negotiate a contract for their productivity and even if the company likes the outcome in this case this law sets a precedent that government can dictate what terms a company can and can't put into their contracts. In a laissez faire system a company has an OPTION to replace a significant amount of the workforce and take a short term hit in lose productivity and money to train new workers. Or it can accept that offer which will surly bring more headachs and labor cost. To say that a worker's "right to work" has been violated when a company and a union enter into a voluntary contract is absurd. The people that want to work non-union has the other 90% of the workforce to choose from. This is another example of fighting government interventionism with more interventionism. Not only is this law counter to libertarians princples but also the collapse of the AFL-CIO and the 90/10 ratio shows us is that corporations hardly need this law to off set union's influence.

I love the part now, that in 2008 Vehicles has to get better mpg. (27 mpg) My car already gets 27 mpg. While some of vehicles now get less, I was very suprised that some of the SUV's only get 9 mpg. Talk more about controlling people on what they buy, how much they spend and when the Government can tell people what/when they can have the product. I have no doubt that there is someone out there, that have already invented a car that could get a lot better gas milage. But we the consumer, would we be allowed to have it. I am sure not. While there are some hybrids now out there with better gas milage and problems. It is not uncommon the Government steps in to stop these inventors in one way or another, so we consumers cannot have a better product. WHY, because the government want our money, squeeze us dry.

Time for a new blog, LP powers that be...

my libertarian radar tells me something is about to drop. No updates in a long time = something big coming down the chute....maybe hanging up in the hopper a bit :D

matt:

The right to work laws do not stop a company and employees from entering into a contract. As I mentioned before, in Texas there are closed shops, open shops and combination shops. A principal of the law is that one is not required to join a labor union to work in his trade and a company is not required to do business with organized labor. They are free to do their own deals. If a company determines best to sign with a union they do. That is shop is then closed to anyone not a member of that union. It also means that government is not required to buy from only union shops but must also accept bids from qualified open shops. That avoids the faults of the trade monopoly existing NY NY for example.

Seems that you just aren't picking up on the injustice of laws that forces one to join a union in order to work in their trade. Freedom is abridged when one group influences politicians, to create a monopoly for them. (Texas is just not one of them)

Seems libertarianism, rooted in freedom of the individual, is not just compatible with organized labor movement. When people join organized labor they must give up individual freedom to that collective. While no one I know are that pure, (pragmatism rules) a purists libertarian would do their own thing and reject most collective actions, joining together only on specific issues.

If an employee is not happy he should walk away. Life is just too short. If the company can't hire a replacement with the same pay package they must adjust the offer until they can fill the position. That's freedom for both parties, and the market at work. When government intervenes in that negotiation that is a serious perversion of the principal fo freedom!

A company is, people and capital working to increase the capital for those that put that capital at risk. Unless they are family held, corporations are not good or bad they just are, and subject to the laws of the country where they operate. They are managed and ruled by economic considerations. The owners are the stockholders with the expectation of dividends and increases in stock value. Companies perform or die based on their performance.

For Freedom:

I think you are on the right track but we are caught between those that want to use government to do everything and those that want to use government for not much.

While I do not object in the government providing and insuring that information the we receive about products is correct. That is something we cannot do for ourselves. There are times when government should be used to solve a problem that cannot wait for the market to solve.

Question for you! Shall we wait of the market to solve to the difference in increasing demand and decreasing supply of the energy? Or can collective action through government provide a less disruptive result and if so what would that be.

Stockman-
If that is all that is to the law then it is sad that the law would be needed at all. I know the hold that unions have in NY and here in phili I can see why some states might want to set precedent up front to state that unions won't get those monoplies.

Unions are generally dying. They account for less than 10% of the workforce. I think they were more than 50% in the late 40's and 50's and 60's. The decline of labor unions can, in part, be credited to their successes. Unions pushed for, and recieved, so much legislation regarding working conditions, pay, etc., that many industry workers no longer need Unions. Why have a union when the law already provides what the unions promise. In short, when Unions got the laws they wanted, they decreased the number of things collective bargaining could bring about for workers. They are a victim of their own success.
However, Government Unions are in no way close to dying. Teachers Unions actaully thrive on failure as do many municipal and state workers unions. In addition, they get great pay and benefits not becuase they earned them but because they have great lobbying power. Also, the people who hand out these great benefits to municipal, state employee and teachers unions dont care what the cost is because there is no bottom line for the government. Unlike a business that needs to be innovative and/or more competetive to thrive, Government thrives on stealing money from the masses, and then passing it off in exchange for votes.
Government workers Unions and Teachers Unions are the beneficiaries of this theft. Government servies and public school are horrible, yet, the public sector workers get whatever they demand.

The answer is that there are lot fewer tasks that require government intervention than is frequently supposed. For example, private labs ARE capable of evaluating the quality and usability of products. Consider underwriters labs (UL stickers seen on electrical products), the Insurance Highway Safety Institute, Consumer's Reports, etc.

As for the issue of whether government or the market is more responsive, that answer is well known to any freshman eco major, or to the owner of stock in UPS, Humana, or National Medical Enterprises, or even AccuWeather. While market externalities do exist, they predominate in government. The Soviet Union collapse was the final test of government planning and efficiency. If you happen to be an elitist in power, then you should be in favor of government influence and direction of the market, provided you are amoral and selfish. For everyone else, the market is more responsive. If you want a high mileage vehicle, buy one of the numerous hybrid or diesel alternatives and stop complaining. Or buy a small gas powered car, or bicycle, etc. The only reason we are hearing politicians talk about mileage now is that they want to surf on the growing market wave of higher mileage vehicles which are already on the drawing boards and test tracks.

matt: one shouldn't overlook the good that has come from the labor movement with respect to safety in the work place. Coal minning comes to mind.

First there must be some central authority to organise standards then find a way to enforce them. In the coal mines it was labor in partnership with government (MSA). In building construction the EPA. Such things does not have to involve government but often do.

I found this story during a google search about the strike at Northwest. It is a tale of spite and vengeance among unions, and points to much of the reason why unions are down to 10% in the private marketplace.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/nwa-a21.shtml

I apologize for the story being on a socialist website, but ya have to take these stories where you find them, and the story is a very strong indictment of the whole union movement.

The fact that unions are forcing individuals to join or be fired is in itself an act of desperation on the part of unions. When you can no longer get people to join your organization without threatening them, then your organization is obviously selling a service that nobody wants to buy. The democratic party depends on union members for their base support and the unions themselves are dying like diseased animals. So what does that say for people like christine gregoire who absolutely has to make promises to unions at taxpayer expense in order to win an election. (Not to mention that she has to count dead people as voters in order to win). The point is that these unions are dying because of many factors and corruption and illegal activity seems to be part of that reason. As unions continue to back themselves into a corner by threatening their members, they tend to destroy a democrats chances for re-election as well. I think the unions should continue threatening their members, it will eventually devestate the democratic party and since republicans are nothing more than liberals in wolves clothing, it should add incredible numbers of voters to the libertarian party over the next few years if the libertarians continue to play their cards right. Way to go unions. Threaten all of your members, that'll get them on your side. The problem the unions have is the fact that the voter makes his choice in with a secret ballot. The other problem they have is a fired liberal is bound to become a pissed off libertarian.

The fact that unions are forcing individuals to join or be fired is in itself an act of desperation on the part of unions. When you can no longer get people to join your organization without threatening them, then your organization is obviously selling a service that nobody wants to buy. The democratic party depends on union members for their base support and the unions themselves are dying like diseased animals. So what does that say for people like christine gregoire who absolutely has to make promises to unions at taxpayer expense in order to win an election. (Not to mention that she has to count dead people as voters in order to win). The point is that these unions are dying because of many factors and corruption and illegal activity seems to be part of that reason. As unions continue to back themselves into a corner by threatening their members, they tend to destroy a democrats chances for re-election as well. I think the unions should continue threatening their members, it will eventually devestate the democratic party and since republicans are nothing more than liberals in wolves clothing, it should add incredible numbers of voters to the libertarian party over the next few years if the libertarians continue to play their cards right. Way to go unions. Threaten all of your members, that'll get them on your side. The problem the unions have is the fact that the voter makes his choice in with a secret ballot. The other problem they have is a fired liberal is bound to become a pissed off libertarian.

Unions have absolutely no place in the public sector. The county sheriffs union should be abolished, as well as the state highway unions, all city unions and any other union that is tied directly to being funded by taxpayer dollars. No politician should be given the oportunity to make deals with unions with the taxpayers money. The taxpayer is being forced to pay not only the demanded wages and benefits of every taxpayer hired union employer, we are also being forced to support the unions themselves. It is well overdue for the unions to be put in their place. That place is the private sector. Its time to get police back to working for the taxpayer instead of working for the unions. We need highway workers who answer to the taxpayer, not the unions. We need politicians who lobby for the peoples support by doing what they promise. We can no longer afford politicians who make promises to unions in order to gain union member support instead of working for the people who pay their wages,....the people who hired them......Lets get unions out of the public sector and put them back into the private sector where they belong. I f the politicians dont like it, let them go get a union job and wait for it to be outsourced..... :)