New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 4, 2005

Tim Cavanaugh asks: Is "paycheck protection" for union employees really any better than all the other ways government tries to "protect" us with regulation?

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← This Town, Is Coming Like a… | Main | I Can't Believe We Saw the… →

See all 67 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Dave W.|11.4.05 @ 9:17AM|#

Its no worse than when a bunch of management types got together and petitioned government to shift the tax base from commerce to individual income (oh, except rich people type income).

So, I guess its kewl! You deserve whatever gov't you can buy.

|11.4.05 @ 9:39AM|#

"Unions would be required to get a positive affirmation from each member before spending his or her dues on political campaigns, renew that affirmation each year, and keep records of the members' permission forms."

That's just like how corporations must get a positive affirmation from every shareholder before making political donations. Or how Congress must get an affirmative checkoff from every citizen before spending their share of the federal budget on foreign policy. Or how the Chamber of Commerce has to get a positive affirmation from each member before spending their dues on political lobbying. Oh, wait a second, none of those things actually exist. My bad.

"Prop 75 has been dubbed the "paycheck protection" initiative, but its real value is as a paperwork-creation initiative that would make it harder for unions to continue to monopolize the public's political attention." Monopolize?

"A reasonable person would welcome any means fair or foul to weaken such a dominant political propaganda force." You aren't suggesting that being able to spend money on political campaigns can actually effect the outcomes of those campaigns, and possibly be injurious to our democracy, are you? You terrible, terrible elitist, you. ;-)

|11.4.05 @ 9:42AM|#

Oh for gods sake, let's be pragmatic and get off our ideological high horse.

This clearly cuts in to union power. The threat of some smart lawyer undercutting it doesn't necessarily render it less of a threat; otherwise the unions wouldn't be fighting so hard to defeat it.

On balance maybe this proposition is ideologically flawed in certain ways--such as the corporations who use our money for the same purposes. However, I'd be willing to trade those ideological flaws for a blow to union power--a pernicious force in many many of the issues that we care about.

|11.4.05 @ 9:44AM|#

Wilson-

I'm sure that if we just pass one more law then we can get this special interest group to stop influencing elections.

|11.4.05 @ 9:46AM|#

Wilson,

Shh! We're supposed to pretend we like people who work for a living, and that we're looking out for their interests. That's why we called it "paycheck protection."

You're not supposed to say those things where the help can hear you.

|11.4.05 @ 9:47AM|#

joe, seriously, think about it. Imagine yourself, in order to pursue your career of choice, being forced to join a union and pay dues. Also imagine that this union consistently campaigns for fascist causes. This wouldn't bother you?

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 9:54AM|#

joe, in many states it is corporations to spend corporate funds on state political campaigns, and I believe it may be a violation of federal campaign law for corporations to make donations as well (its been a few years, I'm a little rusty). There are "soft money" loopholes, of course.

I believe that most "corporate" money in politics comes from PACs, which aggregate voluntary individual contributions. Capital is much more mobile than labor - if I don't like Ben and Jerry's politics, it is a hell of a lot easier for me to sell their stock, than it is for a Teamster member to find a non-Teamster job because he doesn't like their politics.

Given the impossibly high barriers to entry for new unions, I would say that existing unions have an oligopoly. I mean, its not like union members can shop around for a new union - if the Teamsters have your shop, then you have to be a Teamster to work there, and can't just switch over to SEIU because they have a voluntary check-off and the Teamsters don't.

In short, capital doesn't need voluntary checkoff protection nearly as much as labor does, because the capital markets are much more functional than the labor markets.

joe, this legislation looks to me like the kind of protect-the-little-guy legislation I figured you would support.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Should be "in many states it is illegal for corporations . . . ."

|11.4.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Imagine yourself, in order to pursue your career of choice, being forced to join a union and pay dues. Also imagine that this union consistently campaigns for fascist causes. This wouldn't bother you?

It might bother me if I had to go through this. But if this is your problem, I really don't care.

Creative Solutions Dep't|11.4.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Given the impossibly high barriers to entry for new unions, I would say that existing unions have an oligopoly. I mean, its not like union members can shop around for a new union - if the Teamsters have your shop, then you have to be a Teamster to work there, and can't just switch over to SEIU because they have a voluntary check-off and the Teamsters don't.

It is funny that you can see this so well in the labor "market" and yet be so blind to the same thing in other "markets."

|11.4.05 @ 9:58AM|#

joe,

I don't have to give money to a corporation via the buying of stock. Stock is freely tradeable after all and there are numerous options out there. The situation is far different for an employee in a union, especially since unions are organizations which are highly favored by the state.

As to Congress, well, I wouldn't mind a system where I could check off the sorts of things I want my tax money to go to. As to the current system, well, its the one that exists due to the Constitution's provisions.

Or how the Chamber of Commerce has to get a positive affirmation from each member before spending their dues on political lobbying.

You can quit a Chamber of Commerce and still have your business (indeed, such organizations, from experience, are a waste of time and money). Can you quit your Union job and still work in that industry?

Why is that all of your attempted analogies fall flat?

|11.4.05 @ 9:58AM|#

R C-

As a practicing lawyer, do you think that it's likely that this law will make a difference? Or do you think that Tim is right, and the various loopholes will be exploited by clever lawyers, making the thing largely symbolic?

I know that you can't give a definitive answer without reading the entire text and consulting precedents under CA law, but what's your general impression?

I'm skeptical of anything that purports to solve age-old problems (big organizations finding ways to influence political leaders) by requiring that people fill out some paperwork.

|11.4.05 @ 9:59AM|#

When I taught in Massachusetts there were some public schools (but not all) where you HAD to join the union if you wanted to teach there. In exchange for my union dues, every month I received a union magazine printed on paper whose ink didn't bleed onto my skin and clothes too badly. (At the same time, though, you don';t want to wear light colors when reading it.)

Before some state election (which I couldn't vote in anyway, since I live in Connecticut) the magazine dedicated a good chunk of an issue to which candidates teachers should vote for; after looking at the four-page spread of candidate's pictures, standards and party affiliations I wrote a letter to the editor saying "Those four pages can be summed up in one sentence: Vote Democrat across the board."

Didn't get published, of course. Oh, well, I was apparently the only public-school teacher in America who supported vouchers and school choice, anyway.

Boy, I'm glad I'm out of that.

Sorry, I'm rambling.

|11.4.05 @ 10:03AM|#

It is funny that you can see this so well in the labor "market" and yet be so blind to the same thing in other "markets."

Ouch, Creative Solutions knows how to make a good point. I suppose it COULD be considered odd or even hypocritical that certain posters here aren't arguing that people who don't like the current union set-up are perfectly free to go start a union of their own, same way an employee who doesn't like the way his boss s treating him is perfectly free to just find another job. Replace "union" with "big company" and there aren't too many differences, really.

|11.4.05 @ 10:04AM|#

thoreau,

Oh, it will definately just shift the locus of debate.

|11.4.05 @ 10:04AM|#

Mistah Niceguy,

Imagine that you want to have a stock portfolio and retire someday, but the corporations keep making donations to fascists. Would you like that?

The difference is, unions are democratic. Their leadership is elected, and the membership can change policy.

|11.4.05 @ 10:05AM|#

Jennifer,

The state protects unions, therefore you have barriers to entry created by the state. Just another example of how extensive government inhibits liberty.

|11.4.05 @ 10:07AM|#

joe,

The difference is, unions are democratic. Their leadership is elected, and the membership can change policy.

Ha ha ha ha!

Ha ha ha ha!

See joe attempting to surmount the iron rule of oligarchy and failing.

|11.4.05 @ 10:07AM|#

RC Dean, "joe, in many states it is corporations to spend corporate funds on state political campaigns" It is not illegal, in any state, for a corporation to run issue ads, like those being run in California right now.

And is case you missed it, union members are already allowed to opt out of having their dues spent on anything but collective bargaining. I imagine the paperwork is roughly equivalent to that required to sell a stock.

|11.4.05 @ 10:08AM|#

The difference is, unions are democratic. Their leadership is elected, and the membership can change policy.

Where do corporate officers come from? And what's a shareholder lawsuit?

|11.4.05 @ 10:11AM|#

Phil,

Apparently joe has never owned stock in his life.

joe,

I imagine the paperwork is roughly equivalent to that required to sell a stock.

Having done both I can tell you are wrong. Furthermore, when you opt out of the Union dues you have to do it at the Union shop and are of course cajoled about your option by the Union boss. The form took approximately an hour to fill out. When I trade stock I do it anonymously online with a few mouseclicks.

|11.4.05 @ 10:11AM|#

As to the topic, I don't see any particular reason for the law to prefer and opt-in rather than an opt-out so far as the latter is already available, especially when it would be applied to one type of organization and no other.

|11.4.05 @ 10:13AM|#

One of my life experiences that helped point me towards libertarianism was being in the SEIU for about a year. My goodness what a fucked up experience that was.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 10:26AM|#

It is funny that you can see this so well in the labor "market" and yet be so blind to the same thing in other "markets."

No market is perfect, but from the perspective of investors the capital market probably comes closest, and from the perspective of labor the unionized labor market is pretty bad. Other markets have their own flaws, but really, a Teamster who wants to stop funding the Teamster political agenda is going to incur much higher costs in order to do so, as compared to an employee of a corporation or an investor.

Replace "union" with "big company" and there aren't too many differences, really.

Bullshit. If you want to stop funding the Teamsters, you not only have to quit your current job, you have to find another job in a non-Teamster shop. That is a harder for someone in the trades (especially in a closed shop state) than someone who is not in a unionized line of work, and astronomically harder than just selling stock and reinvesting elsewhere.

As a practicing lawyer, do you think that it's likely that this law will make a difference?

Probably not. Any other result would violate the iron law of politics: Money and power will find each other.

And is case you missed it, union members are already allowed to opt out of having their dues spent on anything but collective bargaining.

The fact that the percentage of union members who vote Republican is much larger than the percentage who take advantage of this option shows how flawed it is, and is probably yet another demonstration of the iron law at work.

I just think its amusing that joe thinks a law that at least potentially empowers the little guy is objectionable for some reason that he hasn't really made clear (other than it might hurt the economic and demographic engine of the left, organized labor).

|11.4.05 @ 10:40AM|#

"The fact that the percentage of union members who vote Republican is much larger than the percentage who take advantage of this option shows how flawed it is, and is probably yet another demonstration of the iron law at work."

That's quite an assumption. Unions endorse Republicans all the time - in my own state, I can think of a number of unions that endorsed Republican governors and presidential candidates, and the Carpenter's Union has been very close with the Republicans of late.

And no, reducing the power of labor in the politics in not "empowering the little guy," as your too-forthright-to-be-an-effective-conservative buddy Wilson makes clear.

|11.4.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Unions can be forced down one's throat uner current labor law in a way that stock shares can't. Change the labor laws to allow corporations to choose not to deal with unions or pass a right to work law and this problem goes away.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 10:52AM|#

And no, reducing the power of labor in the politics in not "empowering the little guy,"

How is giving the little guy more power over what is done with his union dues not "empowering the little guy," joe? I do think that an opt-in to political expenditures is (theoretically) giving him more control.

What exactly is your objection to this legislation, anyway?

That's quite an assumption. Unions endorse Republicans all the time - in my own state, I can think of a number of unions that endorsed Republican governors and presidential candidates, and the Carpenter's Union has been very close with the Republicans of late.

Don't kid yourself, joe. Big Labor's resources flow overwhelmingly to Democrats, joe, but something like 40% of union members are pretty consistent Republican voters. The occasional Repub endorsement doesn't make them even close to evenly bipartisan.

|11.4.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Jason, "Unions can be forced down one's throat uner current labor law in a way that stock shares can't."

As you never tire of reminding me, everyone is free to quit their job. That's your answer to sexual harrassment, to racial discrimination, to hazardous workplaces. But when it comes to having to fill out an opt-out form, oh no, they're being coerced to work there! Spare me, hypocrite.

"How is giving the little guy more power over what is done with his union dues not "empowering the little guy," joe?" Because little guys, by definition, are empowered vs. big guys through collective action. This bill is designed to make that action more difficult, by imposing a massive administrative burden on unions who attempt to take such action. As your buddy Wilson was tactless enough to point out.

"What exactly is your objection to this legislation, anyway?" It imposes an undue burden on one actor in the political scene, while leaving their likely opponents without such burdens. It's a blatant thumb on the scale against the little guy.

" Big Labor's resources flow overwhelmingly to Democrats, joe, but something like 40% of union members are pretty consistent Republican voters." And a similar, or higher, percentage of stockholders vote Democrat. Seen any figures on corporate contributions to campaigns and advocacy groups?

BTW, in line with that last thought, how's that "widespread stock ownership will turn everyone into Republicans" think going?

|11.4.05 @ 11:01AM|#

I think prop 75 is just another example of trying to treat a symptom instead of a cause. The problem comes from closed shops and forced membership.

If unions were voluntary, there would be no need to do this.

And for the second time in two days, I agree with joe that by using the logic of prop 75, corporations should be required to do the same thing, especially closely held corporations which have similar barriers to exit. And that's all we need - more laws making sure that only the super-wealthy will have the proper legal representation to actually contribute to a candidate...

|11.4.05 @ 11:02AM|#

joe,

In the 2004 federal elections labor spent 87% of what it spent on political campaigning on Democrats. By way of contrast, business spent 45%.

See here and weep: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2004

Of the types of groups profiled on that site, labor was by far the most skewed as party affiliation.

|11.4.05 @ 11:04AM|#

joe,

Get a clue, we aren't Republicans.

|11.4.05 @ 11:06AM|#

joe,

But when it comes to having to fill out an opt-out form, oh no, they're being coerced to work there!

Unions are government protected entities. Of course advocates of liberty oppose them and laws which favor them.

|11.4.05 @ 11:24AM|#

Anyway, suffice it to say that this is a very dumb law that doesn't address the wrong at hand.

|11.4.05 @ 11:29AM|#

joe:

Yes, you can leave your job, but the employer CAN'T make an accomodating provision under current law. Imagine a third party stair manufacturer insinuating itself between a company and a hadicapped employee by getting a law passed that says that every company must buy stairs and not ramps. The union is absolutely 0 different from a third party company who uses law to mandate purchase of its products. Choosing an employer who doesn't have a union is a matter of preference, but it is willful blindness to say that it is still a preference when law says that no company can refuse union organization and that if your employer goes union, you have too as well. Those are no longer choices.

|11.4.05 @ 11:32AM|#

In the 2004 federal elections labor spent 87% of what it spent on political campaigning on Democrats. By way of contrast, business spent 45%.

Stats can make things sound more sinister that they are. If the Democrat candidates supported a similar agenda to the unions', it makes sense for them to try to ensure those candidates get elected.

|11.4.05 @ 11:47AM|#

I've been waiting for this discussion for some time, because I've recently joined the graduate student union here at my university. They have free beer at happy hour once a month, which I figure most of my dues go towards, so I figured it was wasn't such a bad thing. I also decided to go ahead and get involved with the union seeing how I'd rather have some input to what the hell they are doing.

So far, its been a good experience. I think that's because its a relatively new union and is fighting for things that make sense. Teaching and research assistants are generally treated like slave labor by the university and faculty. They get away with this because not only are they our bosses, but also in control of our education as well. This causes many people who have been screwed to remain silent.

I can definitely see where abuse can start to happen, especially if this were an opt-out union and not opt-in as it is. I really can't imagine being forced to pay dues to a union. Especially if they didn't at least provide free beer.

|11.4.05 @ 12:03PM|#

As to Proposition 75, some people are of the belief that the amount of their CTA dues that were spent on political contributions is very small. For all I know people are told that such contributions were in the less than 10 percent range or lower and some indicated that they were also advised that members DID have a choice to �opt-out.� The realities are these, supported by CTA�s own statements and member application attached to this e-mail, of the near $1,000 annual dues CTA allocates nearly 30 percent and NEA nearly 50 percent for �non-chargeable� or political contributions.

The current and recently past anti-Prop. 75 ads are extremely misleading. The teacher union's ads say there is already an �opt-out� option. While technically true, the real meaning is never revealed. One might reasonably think that �opt-out� means that you get to keep your portion of the dues that would otherwise be spent on political contributions. Unfortunately, this is NOT the case. CTA keeps those due, implying that they will not be spent on politics.

Proposition 75 gives members a real choice. �Opting-in� means leaving your money with the union to spend as it sees fit. �Opting-out� means the member keeps his/her portion to spend, or not, on their politics of his/her individual choice.

There is one more significant statement in the ads that is very misleading: That the proposition is trying to �silence the voice of union members.� There is not such language in the proposition. Anyone who chooses to can just write a check.

R C Dean|11.4.05 @ 12:16PM|#

Still waiting for joe to tell us just what is wrong with this proposal.

Other than its potential to reduce the union warchest.

I agree with joe that by using the logic of prop 75, corporations should be required to do the same thing, especially closely held corporations which have similar barriers to exit.

And all the arguments about why political spending is harder for union members to get away from than shareholders are pretty much ignored.

The "barriers to exit" in a closely held corporation are, usually, nothing more than a right of first refusal held by the corporation or other shareholders, or perhaps what amounts to a put option at a formula price. I don't think this really compares with the disruption that a union tradesman is likely to face in finding a non-union job in his trade in a closed-shop state.

|11.4.05 @ 12:33PM|#

A union member can choose to become a "fee-payer" - a fee-payer pays smaller dues than a union member and their money is not used for political contributions or campaigns.

The idea behind this is every employee benefits from collective bargaining, so every employee should at least pay to support it. I never hear workers complaining about the pay and benefits they receive as a result of working in a unionized industry.

|11.4.05 @ 12:35PM|#

"I don't think this really compares with the disruption that a union tradesman is likely to face in finding a non-union job in his trade in a closed-shop state."

Never been involved with a closely held corporation, have you RC? What's the market? Even avoiding rights of first refusal, etc. - who's going to buy into one? Do you have any idea the amount of research a competent investor would have to engage in in order to make a realistic offer for such stock? Especially if it is a minority share?

No, selling your closely held stock is, if anything, more difficult, more costly, and more disrupting than leaving a trade job. You can, after all, always work under the table in the trades, even in the worst states. Trying to sell your closely held stock, on the other hand, is quite often impossible, unless you are willing to give it away for fractions of a penny on the dollar.

None of which should intimate that I think that because of that investors should be protected from their conscious decision to invest in the corporation in the first place. Just like I don't think that union members should be protected from their decision to work in a trade that is a closed shop. Both have options. The problem is the existence of a closed shop in the first place, and that conclusion is the result of the bilateral monopoly being forced upon employers. It has nothing to do with the employee's choice of where to work - it would be entirely acceptable for an employer to force you to join a union to work for him. It is also acceptable for employees to form a union to negotiate. The problem comes when the employer is forced negotiate ONLY with the union.

That's the problem.

And joe has you guys against the wall because you are trying to use his type of logic to justify protecting union members from their voluntary decision to work at a union job.

|11.4.05 @ 12:44PM|#

quasibill,

I think you'd have to support this law to be against the wall (by anyone).

|11.4.05 @ 1:00PM|#

"As you never tire of reminding me, everyone is free to quit their job. That's your answer to sexual harassment, to racial discrimination, to hazardous workplaces."

Joe, and your answer to sexual harassment and subsequent intimidation in the workplace is to stand with the perpetrator and call every single victim a liar. Women just make that shit up anyway.

|11.4.05 @ 1:04PM|#

joe is so prone to hyperbole.

nofollow breaks blogs, part 2|11.4.05 @ 1:14PM|#

The article only briefly mentions the commercial with the three judges. You might note that those three are all older, all are men, and all of them are white (one with a bit of a nose).

As it turns out, that was, believe it or don't, intentional.

The commercial is paid for by Fabian Nunez, and at yesterday's "debate" he played the race card and said that the judges who'll draw the districts won't be representative (paraphrasing) "like the audience here. There will be no blacks, Latinos, Asians, women" etc. etc.

(Nunez is also a former member of MEChA who recently kowtowed to Vicente Fox in Mexico. But, don't let reality spoil those libertarian dreams of an open border.)

|11.4.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Is "paycheck protection" for union employees really any better than all the other ways government tries to "protect" us with regulation?

No. If there are laws unfairly favoring unions, change those laws. Until then, they're still private organizations of people. Even if they contract with employers to create union shops requiring membership for hiring, that's still all voluntary agreement.

End of story.

|11.4.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Eric the .5b,

People tend to forget that all this "protection" is the result of the extensive nature of government in the first place. The bigger the government, the more potential for oppression, thus the greater need for protection, etc. Its a rather vicious circle.

|11.4.05 @ 1:39PM|#

Correct, Hak. Therefore, at least kill the next generation of the cycle by not passing laws like this.

|11.4.05 @ 1:41PM|#

RC, maybe you should stop waiting, because I answered your question at 11:00 AM. To recap: it unfairly burdens one side in the political contest, while leaving the other unburdened.

Its intent and effect is, as Wilson put it so well, to "cut in to union power. The threat of some smart lawyer undercutting it doesn't necessarily render it less of a threat; otherwise the unions wouldn't be fighting so hard to defeat it.

On balance maybe this proposition is ideologically flawed in certain ways--such as the corporations who use our money for the same purposes. However, I'd be willing to trade those ideological flaws for a blow to union power--a pernicious force in many many of the issues that we care about."

I don't care if it's unions, sewing circles, or anyone else - singling out one actor on the political scene for repression via red tape is corrosive to democracy.

|11.4.05 @ 1:41PM|#

"I think you'd have to support this law to be against the wall (by anyone). "

Well, if RC says he doesn't support this law, then I will proffer a mea culpa. His posts, however, imply to me that he does.

"No. If there are laws unfairly favoring unions, change those laws. Until then, they're still private organizations of people. Even if they contract with employers to create union shops requiring membership for hiring, that's still all voluntary agreement.

End of story."

Hear! Hear!

|11.4.05 @ 1:57PM|#

quasibill,

He may be the only person here supporting the law. I don't even think Cavanaugh is.

nmg|11.4.05 @ 2:39PM|#

But if the only option is a new precedent for state meddling in the operations of a private organization

It's not quite as clear cut as that. The state employee unions have specifically railroaded the state into doing business with them as the monopoly provider of labor for the state. They made their bed, now they can lie down in it. The state has every right to dictate terms.

The public employee unions are what I would call a "quasi" private organization.

And it's not the same as corporations making contributions. Corporations do *not* have a captive membership of people they can extract money from for their own political purposes. State employees have no choice but to join the union when they take the job. They are captive, and coerced. it's wrong.

nmg

James Anderson Merritt|11.4.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Opt-out is great if the thing you have to opt-out of is something you would probably want anyway, and if that approach makes it easier or cheaper to get it to you. Opt-out to keep from learning about updates or recalls involving a product you bought, for instance. Opt-in is better, whenever you might not want the thing on every occasion, or if you simply don't want even a little bit of it at all. Opt-in for getting notices of other product announcements from that same manufacturer, or for getting advertisements of products and services from the company's "business partners."

I see the political speech issue as ideal for "opt-in," and this is what Prop 75 establishes. The current "opt out" scheme of the unions is based on people's laziness or susceptibility to intimidation. In the TV Town Hall meeting on the propositions, broadcast a few days ago, one of the union guys speaking against Prop. 75 said that Opt-in would shift his time from working on behalf of union interests to fund-raising. My response to that was "Poor baby! You might actually have to verify that someone agrees with you and wants to help before using their money?"

That said, I have to tell you that the Town Hall meeting broadcast was one of the most discouraging things I have seen yet in this campaign season. Arnold did not directly engage the opposition spokespeople, and both sides, speaking separately and in isolation from one-another, sounded pretty whiny. Arnold's main theme was, "I was sent to Sacramento to shake things up for the people and special interests are standing in my way." The opposition's main theme was, "Arnold breaks his promises, and he wants to stifle dissent. We're being punished! Why's he gotta hate?" Neither song was very convincing, imho. I was particularly disappointed in Arnold, who seemed to lack confidence, at times even appearing flustered, despite the fact that he never directly engaged his opponents. Under those controlled conditions, I would have expected him to be a much more self-possessed and effective presenter of his positions. There were a great many good arguments that the Governator could have made in support of his ballot recommendations, but I didn't hear him do so nearly as often as he might have.

Frankly, I've been more enlightened AND entertained, watching hours of Santa Cruz City Council meetings on local public access cable.

|11.4.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Seems to me that, when you make the decision to join a union (groove on the root word there for a moment), your willingness to participate in collective actions that the union, as a whole, undertakes can safely be assumed. You're joining a union!

|11.4.05 @ 3:16PM|#

That's one of the things that I liked about libertarianism in the first place, it's (in theory) union-neutral. Unions are a voluntary organization built to serve a clientele. Unfortunately, they're all so tangled in government it's hard to resist the urge to assert that that should give government the ability to regulate/suppress/promote them. But we argue against this line of thinking all the time. As for me, I've already sent in my absentee ballot voting against this thing.

|11.4.05 @ 4:11PM|#

joe,

Unionism has always been plagued by violence and the like as part of efforts to force people to join them (or in the case of skilled laborers, to keep folks out of the profession). Your pie in the sky view of these things is pretty amusing though.

Jason Sonenshein|11.4.05 @ 5:46PM|#

If Prop. 75 is really about "paycheck protection," why do the paychecks of government employees merit more "protection" than those of private-sector employees?

|11.4.05 @ 5:48PM|#

I know it's late so everyone's probably gone but-

None of which changes the truth that unions?even public sector unions?are private organizations whose members join of their own free will. (That is, at the very least they choose to work in unionized professions; there are legitimate questions about how free workers are to say no to union membership

-saying "legitimate questions" is the understatement of the century. I am absolutely, positively un-free to not be in the union, if I want to make any kind of living in my profession, at least in any non-right to work state. And I sincerely was not aware of this when I went into it as a teenager, and it shouldn't matter if I were.

And you can bet I'm not walking into the union office to opt-out; gung-ho union people can really fuck with you if they think you're doing something that undermines it. So I really have no choice.

|11.4.05 @ 7:56PM|#

" Because little guys, by definition, are empowered vs. big guys through collective action."-joe

The little guy is only empowered through collective action if he agrees with what the collective is doing. If the little guy disagrees with it then the collective is just another big guy imposing its will on the little guy.

Unless your want to argue that if the little opposes the collective it's because he does not know what's good for him, and therefore deserves to have its will imposed on him?

M1EK|11.5.05 @ 1:55PM|#

"And you can bet I'm not walking into the union office to opt-out; gung-ho union people can really fuck with you if they think you're doing something that undermines it. So I really have no choice."

You expect intervention because you're too afraid to opt out of a union? Just get another job. If it's good enough for those being sexually harassed, discriminated against, made to work in unsafe conditions, etc., what makes you so special?

|11.5.05 @ 2:08PM|#

The exceptional worker can demand his or her own deal or go elsewhere. The union prohibits any additional benefit to the more productive worker by opposing piece work or productivity bonuses. If you are not worth what you are being paid, you need a union.
Mandatory union membership or agency shops are the last legal slavery.

|11.5.05 @ 6:10PM|#

M1EK is of course attacking libertarian in his head. He's good at that.

|11.6.05 @ 11:18AM|#

MJ,

"The little guy is only empowered through collective action if he agrees with what the collective is doing. If the little guy disagrees with it then the collective is just another big guy imposing its will on the little guy."

Given that human beings are not identical, there will inevitably be a range of opinion among any group. It is the inevitable nature of collective action that the final course of action will not be 100% acceptable to everyone. Therefore, the choices are either to have a collective action that some of the group do not fully support, or to have no such action. Unlike many here, I actually do believe that it is important for "the little guy" to be able to function as a balancing force against his bosses.

For those whose disagreement with the union is too deep, it is important that they be able to opt out. But, once again, the act of joining a union is one of agreeing to be part of a group that takes collective action, and the (rebuttable, obviously) assumption should be that union members do support collective action by the union.

M1EK, yes, exactly. Accordeing to libertarians, when the man who decides whether or not you're going to get a paycheck next weeks leans on you, you are absolutely, 100% free to leave your job or otherwise defy him. Hey, no one's making you feed your kids! But when you are concerned that someone with absolutely no power over you might try to convince you of something by talking, why, what human being could be expected to stand up to that?

|11.6.05 @ 11:44AM|#

joe,

Therefore, the choices are either to have a collective action that some of the group do not fully support, or to have no such action.

No, according to the iron rule of oligarchy, the choices will be made by a few that are part of the organization. Unions do not and never have work the way you claim that they do.

|11.6.05 @ 1:27PM|#

"...the act of joining a union is one of agreeing to be part of a group that takes collective action, and the (rebuttable, obviously) assumption should be that union members do support collective action by the union."-joe

To the extent that joining a union is compulsary to be able to work for certain types of jobs in certain areas, it cannot be assumed that the act of joining the union is an indication of agreement with the union's goals. It is only when union membership (and the paying of dues) is a free choice is that assumption valid.

If the little guy believes that the actions of the collective do not advance his goals, then the little guy cannot be said to be empowered by those actions. To suggest otherwise denies the little guy's individuality and is an argument for his oppression.

|11.6.05 @ 1:31PM|#

MJ,

No see, its a Union, that means everything they do is holy. :)

|11.6.05 @ 2:29PM|#

"To the extent that joining a union is compulsary to be able to work for certain types of jobs in certain areas..."

It is only "compulsary" to the extent that 1) a worker chooses to seek a job in that profession 2) with a company that has a unionized shop - that is, where the workers have chosen to have a union in each and every one of the companies in that field in that area, and no competitors have opened up shop without their workers also choosing to form a union. The fact that no such businesses exist in a certain area means that the workers in existing shops want to continue to be unionized, and the market has not created competitors. I don't know how much you know about the issue, but there is nowhere in the country - not a single city, town, hamlet, burg, or village - in which businesses are forbidden to operate without a union, or in which the employees of local businesses are required to unionize. None.

Workers get to operate with a market too, you know. Would you prefer the government forbid the employees of certain companies from engaging in collective bargaining, so your theoretical workers will have a non-union shop to work in? I doubt you would.

"If the little guy believes that the actions of the collective do not advance his goals, then the little guy cannot be said to be empowered by those actions." And workers, even in closed shops, are guaranteed by the law the right to opt out of any political action, including paying dues for political action, that they disagree with.

Kevin Carson|11.7.05 @ 9:55PM|#

"those problems could be better addressed by one of the right-to-work laws that have been adopted in 22 states."

Uh, Tim.... The union shop exists in any bargaining unit as a result of a contract between management and the union local. So you're in favor of legal interference with the freedom of private contract? Are you also in favor of the provision of rtw laws that requires the union to represent non-dues-paying scabs? There goes the right of free association as well, I guess.