A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, October 17, 2008 Right-to-Work Laws, Again By Diana Hsieh @ 12:06 AM On FRODO (the discussion list of Front Range Objectivism), someone objected to my opposition to Colorado's Amendment 47 -- a "right-to-work" measure that would forbid private businesses from requiring union membership as a condition of employment -- on the grounds of "freedom of choice" and "natural rights." My reply is of general interest, as I think the legitimacy of "right-to-work" laws can be confusing. I wrote: The idea that people have some kind of natural right to work for another person -- without regard for their employer's terms -- is completely ridiculous. If my employer says that he's only willing to hire me if I cut my hair short, put in 10 hour days, donate money to ARI, or join a union, that's his right. And it's my right -- precisely because I'm a free person, not a slave -- to refuse employment under those terms. To say that he is obliged to hire me, even though I don't meet his terms, would make him my slave. That's why "right-to-work" laws are wrong. They are yet another violation of the right to contract -- in a misguided, typically conservative attempt to make existing pro-union laws more "fair." But in fact, freedom requires the repeal of those unjust pro-union laws -- not passing even more unjust regulations to "level the playing field" or "protect choice." My view here is the definitive Objectivist position. In the June 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter, Barbara Branden addressed the issue of "right-to-work" laws: What is the Objectivist stand on "right-to-work" laws? As advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, Objectivists are opposed to any legislation that abridges the freedom of production and trade. We are, therefore, opposed to the "right-to-work" laws. The "right-to-work" laws prohibit employers and unions from contractually agreeing to and stipulating a closed and/or union shop. As such, these laws clearly represent an infringement of the rights of the parties involved; these laws rest on the principle that the government has the right to prescribe the terms of contractual agreements-which is a Statist concept. In a free society, an employer who voluntarily negotiates with a voluntary union, may sign any agreement with the union that he wishes. Although it is doubtful whether a closed and/or union shop agreement would ever be economically wise, that choice is the employer's to make. No one's rights are infringed by such an agreement; a worker does not have a "right" to a job with a given employer; if he does not or cannot meet the employer's terms, he is free to seek employment elsewhere. Many "conservatives" champion "right-to-work" laws on the ground that today unions are so powerful they can virtually compel an employer's agreement to a closed and/or union shop. It is true that unions have such power. But they acquired it only by virtue of legislation, which had the effect of forcing men into unions whether they wished to join or not and of forcing employers to deal with these unions. Unions did not and could not achieve, in a free society, the monopolistic, destructive power they possess in today's "mixed economy." The guilty party is not unionism as such, but government controls. The solution lies, not in passing new laws, but in repealing the laws that caused the disaster in the first place. The defenders of freedom do not serve their own cause by trying to fight their battle on the enemy's terms, that is, by deciding that the solution to the evil of government intervention in the economy is more government intervention. Ari Armstrong has more on his blog. Labels: Business, Election, Politics Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, October 17, 2008 at 11:41:33 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Jim May E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com "Righ to work" laws are a demonstration of how destructive compromise can be to individual rights. First, you have the Wagner Act and similar laws that give unions certain illegitimate legal powers that abrogate freedom of association, in particular the freedom to set terms in contracts, on the part of both workers and employers. When the dislocations caused by these laws, the conservatives' solution is to practically wipe out contracts entirely. I found this out when I was about to walk off a job in Nevada over a dispute with an overreaching supervisor. But first I went to the human resources office, and asked to check the terms of my original agreement to work there, so I could be sure of what the supervisor could and could not demand. I was told that no such agreement existed, no terms, nothing; I was an "at will" employee, and I could walk off the job at anytime, just as they could fire me at anytime. The law effectively *forbade* any agreements at all, apparently, beyond terms of payment. As a result, everything is subject to whims on both sides. I had no recourse to a contract to reign that supervisor in, and my employer could not protect themselves by contract from disruptive walkoffs by key individuals... their only recourse would be to sue for damages (maybe; IANAL). I had to resolve the situation by relying on my overall value as an employee -- that is, by implied threat of walking out -- to convince the bosses that I was worth reigning that supervisor in.
	Friday, October 17, 2008 at 11:42:33 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Jim May E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com Please amend "When the dislocations caused by these laws" to add ... became clear, "
	Friday, October 17, 2008 at 11:43:42 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Eric Daniels I find that the imposition of right-to-work laws is generally a response to previous coercion in the contractual relationship between employer and employee. The imposition of mandatory collective bargaining and federal supervision and support of unionization has greatly diminished the rights of employers (and some employees) to determine their own contractual relations. Of course, the solution to this problem is not the imposition of more government-mandated rules about employment--the solution lies in the repeal of the unnecessary pro-union rules that have been in place since the 1930s.
	Friday, October 17, 2008 at 13:38:33 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Robert Speirs E-mail: robspe51(at)hotmail.com Unionism is a collectivist concept. To the extent that membership in unions is voluntary, one can not deny the individual worker his right to join one. When union membership, however, is imposed by vote of those who work for an employer, it is not voluntary with the individual, especially if the "closed shop" was imposed before a particular individual started work. As I understand the legal framework, the employer can have the closed shop imposed on him without his consent, as a matter of law, by vote of the majority of the employees. Mandatory unionism is not a voluntary contract, especially now that unions have become agencies of a near-totalitarian state. It would be best, of course, to remove the evil of government interference in the worker-employer relationship completely. But right-to-work laws at least reduce the compulsion imposed on individuals who do not want to join unions but would rather contract with employers on their own. Half a loaf is better than a "card-check".
	Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 6:09:13 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: softwareNerd E-mail: softwareNerd(at)gmail.com URL: http://softwareNerd.blogspot.com "Right to work" laws are clearly wrong and the correct approach is to undo the bad laws. In terms of activism, it also makes sense to refuse to push any such law as a solution. However, I don't think it follows that one should actually vote for the repeal of a "right to work law" in isolation, nor that one should vote against the imposition of such a law. One can surely make the case about voting, but I don't think it follows solely from the "one more restriction" nature of the law. Similarly, if there is a vote to remove some one restriction, one might refuse to vote for it: e.g. refusing to vote for a faux electricity "deregulation", while knowing that it must be removed, but along with the countervailing laws.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 2 plus 7 equals 5836992468036710579