Right to Work

Sure the Market Isn’t Free, So Why Make It Even Less Free With Right-To-Work Laws?

|

Robert F Wagner

My post criticizing right-to-work laws has, itself, come under considerable criticism, today. Over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute's OpenMarket.org, Ivan Osorio states that criticism succinctly, targeting arguments that I (and Gary Chartier, who I quoted) made that characterized right-to-work legislation as assaults on freedom of contract and association:

Chartier's and Tuccille's argument makes sense in a political vacuum, but not in the reality we live in. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which regulates all private sector labor relations in the U.S. (except for railroads and airlines), mandates closed shops, while allowing states to opt out of the closed shop mandate through right-to-work laws. So, under the NLRA, closed union shops can be either mandated or forbidden. Yes, making closed shops optional for employers would be a much better option, but until the NLRA is repealed, right-to-work laws remain the most viable palliative to compulsory unionism.

True, federal legislation does regulate labor relations in the United States. Right-to-work laws are certainly not intruding into a free marketplace for labor. Not only does the NLRA (also known as the Wagner Act) use government power to favor organized labor unions over businesses and independent workers, but the Taft-Hartley Act then limits labor actions and political speech.

That the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947 as a response to the perceived excessive power that unions gained from the 1935 NLRA illustrates one of the problems with right-to-work laws — one that free-marketeers and libertarians are usually quick to point out. That is, the distortions in human life caused by intrusive laws always raise the temptation to patch over the problems with additional legislation. That additional legislation is likely to lead to more problems … That's why we're always better off dumping bad laws than trying to "fix" them in a spiraling game of spackle-the-law books.

However, there is a group that benefits from responding to laws with more laws, and that group consists of politicians and government officials. Note that the long-standing positions of the major political parties are represented both in the federal legislation mentioned above and the current battle over right-to-work laws. With the NLRA, Democrats positioned themselves as advocates for labor, while Republicans responded to business concerns with Taft-Hartley. Republicans now champion right-to-work on behalf of beleaguered businesses, while Democrats tout their opposition to such laws to their union-member constituents. By intruding the state into labor-business relations, politicians elevated their own importance and power in a way that simply staying out of the matter, or repealing laws, never could,

Right-to-work laws at the state level "balance" federal labor legislation only by countering state intrusion with state intrusion. The result is certain to be a continuing effort to "fix" problems caused by earlier laws. And politicians will be at the center of it all, building their authority while playing the sides against each other.

A free market in which businesses and labor negotiate conditions on their own can be created only by actually freeing the market. It will also reduce the power of government and the role of politicians. Yes, that is more difficult than enacting ever-more legal spackle.

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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

188 responses to “Sure the Market Isn’t Free, So Why Make It Even Less Free With Right-To-Work Laws?

  1. “Sure the Market Isn’t Free, So Why Make It Even Less Free With Right-To-Work Laws?”

    Well, your presumption is wrong.
    Yes, the labor market isn’t free, but RTW laws make it far more free, not less.

    1. There is the argument that people make about non-RTW states having higher average salaries.

      What they don’t include is that said higher average salaries also corresponds to a significantly higher unemployment rate as well.

      In “freer” markets, less people are unemployed. They may not make as much, but they have a job.

      I’m with you Sevo, I don’t understand why people are making this presumption.

      1. Tman| 12.12.12 @ 8:45PM |#
        “There is the argument that people make about non-RTW states having higher average salaries.[…]
        In “freer” markets, less people are unemployed. They may not make as much, but they have a job.”

        Which is strange, coming from lefties who claim to favor ‘equality’ above all else.
        Maybe that’s not really what they favor, ya think?

        1. Income inequality is also lower in right to work states than it is in union-slave states.

          1. Which, if we gave a shit about income inequality as a statistic on its own, might matter.

            1. I don’t care about it on its own, but this fact is a good counter to lefty bullshit.

      2. RTW states actually have higher median wages than non-RTW states after you adjust for COL

  2. A free market in which businesses and labor negotiate conditions on their own can be created only by actually freeing the market. It will also reduce the power of government and the role of politicians. Yes, that is more difficult than enacting ever-more legal spackle.

    More difficult? Try impossible, short of massive violence and death.

    Governments always grow. Always, unless some sort of revolution takes place, and what comes after them is usually just as bad as what came before. There is only one solution, and that is frontiers. But we don’t have those right now, because only space is really left (the oceans to some degree) for a frontier.

    You just better hope that warp drive isn’t a fantasy.

    1. You’re basically saying space is some kind of Final Frontier?

      1. This is, of course, silly, since for all we know it loops around on itself.

    2. Bad news, brah. The warp drive is a fantasy.

      When you fire that thing up, the light from the stars in front of you is going to be blueshifted into gamma rays. Plus the interstellar hydrogen (~one proton per m^3 IIRC) will essentially become a radiation flux of massive charged particles.

      The crew would probably get a fatal dose of radiation before they’d gotten a quarter of the way to Alpha Centauri, let alone a star system that might have someplace worth colonizing.

      1. tarran| 12.12.12 @ 11:04PM |#
        “Bad news, brah. The warp drive is a fantasy.
        When you fire that thing up, the light from the stars in front of you is going to be blueshifted into gamma rays.”

        Damn! I *knew* there was a catch.

      2. This is a misunderstanding of “warp” drive physics. If you were to use gravitic drives (in a non-c speed limit world) then what you describe is somewhat on point, however…warp suggests the movement of space as opposed to the craft. Picture if you will, instead of moving the boat through the water you instead move the water around the boat.

        1. better yet: You are taking all the water in front of you, picking it up, and putting it behind you while you don’t move…THAT is warp drive (for 40′ Catalinas at least)

      3. When you fire that thing up, the light from the stars in front of you is going to be blueshifted into gamma rays.

        Not sure of this is true…nor do i care.

        But this topic is close enough for me to point out that the big bang is bullshit.

        Also here is a video game that lets you experience the effects of special relativity:

        http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a…..-of-light/

      4. That means we are all Hulk now!

  3. That sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude.
    http://www.AnonSurfit.tk

  4. “Yes, that is more difficult than enacting ever-more legal spackle.”

    I’m more than willing to yield the point if I’m wrong, but this seems to be a case where a new law is not simply piled on top of an earlier failure. This seems to be replacing one more restrictive law with one less restrictive. The restriction is still upon the employer, so it’s hard to sympathize with the union thugs claiming it restricts them.

  5. If we let X be the number of places that are union-only currently, and Y be the number of places that would be union-only in the absence of federal labor laws, then I tend to think that right-to-work laws enhance freedom iff (X – Y) ? Y. If Y is low enough, and it seems plausible that it is VERY low, then right-to-work laws are almost pure wins for freedom.

    1. The problem is no one can know for sure how big Y is. Negotiation is an art, not a science. Just because no employers would want a union security agreement if they had their druthers doesn’t mean they wouldn’t agree to it as part of a voluntary negotiating process. It’s one of many cards a union has to play. The problem is the feds force companies to negotiate with unions if there’s a 51% majority of workers in the company that say they want a union — definitely an arbitrary and unfair standard to apply to both the dissenting voters and the employer.

      But that doesn’t mean in the absence of federal force there’d rarely be closed shops. The market is so perverted by gov’t force right now that I don’t think anyone can say with any degree of certainty how prevalent closed shops would be. I do know that they certainly did exist before the Wagner Act came along.

      1. “The problem is no one can know for sure how big Y is.”

        True.

        In the real world, though, we often have to make educated guesses. This one ain’t that hard.

        “But that doesn’t mean in the absence of federal force there’d rarely be closed shops.”

        In cloudcuckooland, that might be true.

        1. “In cloudcuckooland, that might be true.”

          How about in the United States, that WAS true. Here’s a book written in 1911 that already contains a history of the closed shop in the US. http://books.google.com/books/….._RAAAAMAAJ

          Also, the encyclopedia of education law, vol 1 states that in the late 19th and early 20th century, closed shops were popular. http://books.google.com/books?…..q&f;=false

          BUSTED.

          1. Bottom line: the NLRA is far from necessary and pretty insufficient for the existence of a closed shop.

  6. Closed shops only exist because unions have companies by the short hairs due to favorable labor laws. So I really don’t think J.D. has a very good argument here.

    1. Exactly. The NLRB can make life hell for a business if they’re accused of unfair labor practices, including not negotiating in good faith with a union.

      1. “negotiating in good faith”

        I’m waiting to see “good faith” quantified.
        We do live under the rule of law, right?

        1. I can at least set one parameter. It’s bad faith if you turn down one person’s offer to take a worse offer from someone else.

          1. what if you think one person is can’t or won’t do the job and someone else can and will?

    2. “due to favorable labor laws.”

      well, why not just remove them? It’s pretty ironic when you think about it. It’s actually much easier to repeal and easier on government to have less laws.
      “Do nothing” = a lot less work to do, less bureaucracy, less interference

      1. Because those specific laws are federal, while the RTW laws are on the state level. It’s far easier to get something done on a state level than at the federal level.

      2. You have much to learn about the nature of the beast. He does not exist for leisure, he exists for power.

  7. You still havn’t answered my challenge to show how RTW laws prevent a company which actually wants a closed shop from having one.

    Not being in a labor union does not make one a protected class ergo a company is free to discriminate against you on that basis if they so choose.

    What RTW does do is prevent labor unions from demanding a closed shop in negotiations (and even there depending on the exact wording of the law they may still be able to do it, there is just no legal mechanism they could use to enforce the clause)

    1. Rasilio| 12.12.12 @ 7:57PM |#
      “You still havn’t answered my challenge to show how RTW laws prevent a company which actually wants a closed shop from having one.”

      I’m curious about this also. Seems to me there are several work-arounds perfectly legal under RTW laws that would accomplish that end *assuming* anyone actually desired that.

    2. I’m pretty sure the assumption is wrong on Tucille’s part. The big UPS distribution center here is a closed union shop; however, North Carolina is a right to work state. I see no indication that their affairs have ever been unduly interfered with by RTW advocates.

      1. But UPS is a multi-state company. They don’t want trouble with the unions in non right to work states.

        1. If RTW advocates intended to stop that practice, the Teamsters would have to eat it. Private sector industrial unions have no power here in either political party. Fortunately for them, that is not the objective of RTW advocates.

          1. All non-management employees at UPS are union members; NC RTW just makes it so they don’t have to pay dues.

            1. My point is RTW advocates do not harass closed shops as conjectured by Tucille.

              1. I suppose the UPS NC branch could by some interpretations be called a closed shop if everyone is a union member, but the union is toothless to expel someone for nonpayment of dues.

                1. Expel them from what – the union or employment?

                  The union certainly has the right to expel a non-paying member from the union.

                2. Oh I doubt that. imagine what happens when a union rep lets it “slip” that so-and-so isn’t paying “his fair share.”

      2. It might be closed because it was an existing contract when the law was passed. RTW usually has exemptions for those.

        1. North Carolina is notoriously RTW, and has been since the rise of unions.

      3. I’m vaguely remembering that some companies in the business of shipping stuff interstate are subject to a separate federal labor law. I think there was a kerfuffle a few years ago because Fedex was getting classified differently than UPS. I’m too lazy to google it though.

  8. So I’m not usually one to advocate supporting the lesser of two evils, but…

  9. I agree that the attitude that leads people to lazily paper over bad laws with band-aid solutions, rather than fixing the problem, is deleterious to liberty. However, that ship sailed long ago. It’s not like foregoing RTW laws is going to preserve sanity in our legislative code. There’s no sanity left.

    Attempting to fix bad laws with new laws may be a suboptimal path to take, but not doing anything about the bad laws is even worse. While legal clutter may offend our aesthetic sensibilities, people have to actually live under these laws in the mean time.

    1. No one’s saying not to do anything about NRLA. In fact if anything RTW laws give libertarians a false sense of security that the matter is now closed when it is far from over. The energy spent trying to pass RTW would be far better spent at trying to repeal Taft Hartley and the provisions of NRLA mandating negotiation. Would it take longer to accomplish? Of course. But RTW is a lazy solution that could have unintended consequences down the line.

      1. “The energy spent trying to pass RTW would be far better spent at trying to repeal Taft Hartley and the provisions of NRLA mandating negotiation. ”

        Do you have a shred of supporting evidence for this statement?

        Furthermore, is there any reason to believe that having a growing number of RTW states would not facilitate these end goals?

        How is the energy spent on RTW at the state level somehow taking anything away from what happens at the Federal level?

        1. Mandated negotiation is the real problem here. Not a closed shop agreement. Does having a preponderance of RTW states increase the likelihood of repealing provisions of the NRLA mandating negotiation? Maybe, but then again maybe not, don’t think you can prove it either way. What is certain is that there is an opportunity cost associated with fighting RTW battles, and it also happens to reduce some liberty. The drug legalization in CO and WA does not reduce liberty, it legalizes pot without adding additional burdens to liberty that didn’t already exist before (yes it taxes pot but is a making a previously-illegal product legal and taxing it really worse than keeping it illegal? Are taxes really worse than jail?).

          I’m not going to be a Keynesian and claim I can predict what proportion of closed shops in non-RTW states would have existed if NRLA didn’t exist. That is for the market and voluntary negotiation process to decide once NRLA goes away. Closed shops existed before NRLA and they will exist after it too, as long as they aren’t prohibited. Sure, probably all employers would rather not have them, but when faced with the alternative of the lack of access to union labor, or increasing union wages, maybe they’re the least painful choice.

          1. note: you could possibly argue that the new taxes in the pot legalization are worse than keeping pot illegal if non-pot smokers were forced to pay them. But they’re not — the only new taxes are on the product that’s being legalized! Non-pot smokers can simply avoid the taxes by not buying pot. And are any pot smokers really going to argue they prefer pot being illegal and untaxed but with a huge risk of jail and fines associated with using and trading it, to it being legal (and hence much cheaper too) and taxed?

          2. “What is certain is that there is an opportunity cost associated with fighting RTW battles, and it also happens to reduce some liberty.”

            #1 is not certain. Note that pot legalization is leading to some in DC proposing the loosening of Federal restrictions already, as reported right here.

            #2 is not true in the real world. A law legalizing pot but stating that I’m not allowed to shove white-hot pokers in my own asshole would theoretically take away some liberty, but it would take away a bit of liberty that nobody who isn’t mentally ill will ever exercise.

            The “you can’t prove it” claim is pure horseshit. You can’t prove your point, either. It’s neither here nor there.

  10. Having dealt with both schemes, I found I had more freedom both working and employing in RTW States.

    1. Yes. Me too.

    2. Same here.

      I’m not one to refuse real-world liberty because the details of how I got it may not live up to some ridiculous ideal.

  11. It is a hell of a lot easier to pass a RtW law at the state level than to repeal federal labor law and abolish the NLRB.

    Not a perfect hypothetical analogy but what if the federal Controlled Substances Act had a provision that it would not apply in the case of heavily regulated drug legalization at the state level (or somewhat less hypothetically that the feds would decline to enforce it in states passing laws similar to CO and WA)? It would be more law and regulation but a net gain in liberty.

  12. Single entry book-keeping. The liberty lost from RTW is dwarfed by the liberty gained.

  13. While I think Michigan is doing too little too late and a lot of the auto and steel makers failures derived from top down hubris, there’s a reason companies did not locate to the rust belt to fill the gaps left behind (even when they had huge trained workforces). The UAW dug its own grave and piled workers in it and used the state to help shoot them. Backlash was bound to happen.

    One should note however that there are successful unionized companies like Exxon refining and Southwest Airlines, proving that unions aren’t always the death knell, but when they don’t align their interests with the success of a corporation then they help facilitate its demise. And unions led by the sons of mafia tied thugs tend to fair worst (for the employees).

  14. I’m sympathetic to J.D.’s point since it is based on principle. The arguments for RTW revolve around utilitarian benefits. Even if they counter the NLRA, it doesn’t resolve the issue that RTW is further intervention in an opposed direction, even if they are more beneficial to most.

    I mean you can have say, some guild of specific professionals who may want to negotiate a contract for exclusive work. Also, as far as I understand it, the Taft-harley Act prevents strikes of certain sizes, or region wide strikes I believe. I don’t think that is pro-liberty. An employee whether it’s 1 or hundreds of thousands should be allowed to strike–but not prevent other people from working or crossing the picket-line. And employers should be allowed to fire them en masse.

    There really should just be repeal of laws, to allow complete freedom of hiring, firing, association and non-property-violating protestation (legitimate strikes)

    1. np| 12.12.12 @ 8:12PM |#
      …”RTW is further intervention in an opposed direction,”…

      Don’t see it.
      Seems it is a lesser intervention; moving toward a free market rather than away from it.
      I agree it doesn’t remove all restrictions, but it does remove many.

      1. Yes. RTW is the negation of a previous evil; namely, RTW ends compulsory union membership and ends the infamy of being forced to give them money (which really means: being forced to give money to the democrat machine).

        All of Commissar Odumbo’s rhetoric about “helping the middle class” is going to be hilarious to revisit when, predictably, the middle class becomes stronger as a result of jobs returning to RTW Michigan.

        I’m an Objectivist, so I will applaud any step taken towards laissez-faire, and any law passed (or rescinded) in the name of economic freedom.

        1. Ironically, some people think the Objectivists are the hopeless utopians… 🙂

  15. In terrifying celebrity news today, two hit men from Albuquerque, New Mexico have been arrested for plotting to kidnap, kill, and castrate pop star Justin Bieber at his Madison Square Garden show.

    Skip the 24/7 link whoring and go straight to the actual news report:
    He was found in possession of pruning shears when he was eventually apprehended by authorities.

    1. Why’d they stop him?!?

      1. They got teen daughters.

        1. Even more reason not to stop them.

    2. I don’t think Madison Square Garden is big enough to hold all the people who want to see that. Though there may be a problem when they throw his balls into the audience and all the teeny boppers scramble to catch them.

    3. See? Another bullshit stop by the police. Find me a law, any law, that makes it illegal to kidnap the Biebster and chop his balls off.

      These guys are being screwed over worse than those Hutaree guys were.

    4. Justin Bieber has balls?

      1. I see you’re channeling your inner defense attorney tonight.

    5. Skip the 24/7 link whoring …

      But… Nick said I should check it 8 times a day..?

      (sort of like Muslims to Mecca… we Reasonoids are apostates if we fail to genuflect to the 24/7 altar multiple times a day at least. Every time you skip it, an Angel has its wings torn off.)

      1. I heard the story on Entertainment Tonight BEFORE the 24/7 crew got around to posting it.How do you get scooped by a syndicated TV show?

        1. What kind of monster watches Entertainment Tonight?

  16. Didn’t 2silly post basically the same article earlier today? And didn’t it result in a rather lengthy thread? Well I ain’t playing that game twice in the same day.

    However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone of the Reason Hit & Run College Bowl Pick-Em Extravaganza. The games start in just a few days, so if you’re already in, and quite a few of you are, please remember to lock in your picks of the early games. If you’re not in yet then what the fuck are you waiting for, pussy?

    The password is: reason

    The prizes will be reflective of the spirit and camaraderie found regularly on this site. Basically, you get whatever you can take. Last year, the winner and person that came in third place ended up getting married. Not sure if that’ll happen again but you never know.

    1. Sorry, I’m not ready for commitment.

      1. Oh, don’t worry. You’ve already been exempted from prize eligibility since you can’t pick winners for shit.

        1. Says the guy who picked Gary Johnson.

          1. I didn’t pick him to win. I bet on him to show.

            1. He’s a drunkard’s dream if I ever did see one.

    2. Last year, the winner and person that came in third place ended up getting married.

      Really? That’s awesome (presumably). Anyone I know?

    3. “However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone of the Reason Hit & Run College Bowl Pick-Em Extravaganza.”

      Hey! I’m working on a site where you can guess the drying time on various wall paint! And watch it to see if you guessed right!
      Wall-Paint-Cam! The newest interweb sensation!

      1. Whassamatter Sevo, Chicken?

        1. Hey, you want excitement?
          Watch Kaepernick play any down and thrill to see if he can get the play off before the clock runs out!

          1. Smith will be their QB again by playoff time. Kaepernick isn’t ready yet.

            1. How the hell is Harbaugh going to pull that off?

              I know he likes to say he isn’t bound by the traditional rules, like having only one starting QB at a time and not taking away players’ jobs due to injury. But that’s easy to say when you haven’t run into the problems that those rules are designed to avoid yet.

              If he tries to switch back to Smith it’s going to blow up in his face.

          2. Kaepernick is a flash in the pan.

            An unbelievably stupid mistake. You don’t bench the quarterback of a successful team. No matter what the raw stats tell you, he is a significant part of that winning formula whether or not you can account for it.

  17. In before califernian makes a post which completely mischaracterizes the Wagner Act.

  18. Here’s the thing. It is perfectly and absolutely legal for a genuinely private organization to negotiate a closed-shop contract in right-to-work states. The only time the right-to-work law applies is in cases where a union has sought and gained a government monopoly on collective bargaining through the NLRA. Any union local in Michigan that wants to negotiate a closed shop can still do so; all they have to do is be decertified as the NLRA collective bargaining agent.

    1. Could you please cite the portion of the law that stipulates this? If so this would potentially change my opinion of the law.

    2. Just read the full text of the law. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/…..A-0348.htm

      Nowhere does it mention an exemption for non-certified unions. In fact the law’s definiton of “labor organization” is all-encompassing without any mention of NLRA. (“Labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.)

  19. Today’s “Democracy in America”‘s (Economist blog on US politics) piece re: ‘The assault on labour” =

    http://www.economist.com/blogs…..ur-midwest

    Features an interesting claim on how the “unions SAVED the auto industry”…

    e.g.

    Only a few years ago autoworkers gave up many hard-won benefits in order to save the ailing car industry. Those workers (whose contract expires in 2015), along with thousands of other union members, arrived yesterday in Lansing, the state capital, to protest the legislation. Leaders promised “class warfare” and a battle at the ballot box. They even threatened to turn up at the soccer games of the governor’s daughter.

    The real villains, in their opinion, are the unaccountable plutocrats, such as the Koch brothers, who are pushing the anti-union agenda with the help of right-wing legislative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council…

    Its Koch Brothers all the way down for some people…

    And no mention of what companies like GM were ‘ailing’ from, either.

    Apparently the taxpayer funded bailouts had nothing to do with GM. Someone better tell Obama. The Progressive Narrative is getting even more jumbled than normal.

    1. “Only a few years ago autoworkers gave up many hard-won benefits in order to save the ailing car industry.”

      Ha, ha, and ha.
      Which autoworkers gave up which (“hard-won”) benefits compared to which non-union autoworkers’ benefits?
      See Warrenm, above: “Single entry book-keeping”

    2. Did the Economist fire their political experts and hire a substandard 7th grader to write their blog posts?

      1. The Economist is not what it used to be. I’m pretty sure they have a number of progressive writers now.

    3. Wow, that once great magazine just gets more and more pathetic. Sort of like the American auto industry itself.

      1. I actually don’t blame The Economist at all- their magazine has never really lost its character

        However, there are like 18 different blogs associated with the magazine, and the “Democracy In America” blog is just 4 or so writers in the US (some ex-patriate brits, others – like Will Wilkinson, yanks) who wax snooty-intellectually-superior across a political spectrum that has WW on the “right” (a sort of libertoid-liberal), and everyone else crowding on the more-progressive Left.

        i.e. they pretend to present a diversity of viewpoints, but in fact are almost exclusively reflecting a very narrow-slice of left-leaning intellectual elitism… Who continually reference Krugman as a ‘leading economic thinker’, and to whom Matthew Iglacias and Ezra Klein are ‘moderate’

        Worst is how they torture almost every single topic into a squishy overwrought analysis that drives me nuts. They write like goddamn tenured undergraduate professors sometimes… I actually used to read it frequently, but over the last year or two its just been nausea-inducing streuth and apparently is only getting worse.

      2. I actually don’t blame The Economist at all- their magazine has never really lost its character

        However, there are like 18 different blogs associated with the magazine, and the “Democracy In America” blog is just 4 or so writers in the US (some ex-patriate brits, others – like Will Wilkinson, yanks) who wax snooty-intellectually-superior across a political spectrum that has WW on the “right” (a sort of libertoid-liberal), and everyone else crowding on the more-progressive Left.

        i.e. they pretend to present a diversity of viewpoints, but in fact are almost exclusively reflecting a very narrow-slice of left-leaning intellectual elitism… Who continually reference Krugman as a ‘leading economic thinker’, and to whom Matthew Iglacias and Ezra Klein are ‘moderate’

        Worst is how they torture almost every single topic into a squishy overwrought analysis that drives me nuts. They write like goddamn tenured undergraduate professors sometimes… I actually used to read it frequently, but over the last year or two its just been nausea-inducing streuth and apparently is only getting worse.

  20. That is, the distortions in human life caused by intrusive laws always raise the temptation to patch over the problems with additional legislation.

    They haven’t any choice in the matter. Michigan cannot repeal the NLRA, they can only take the Right To Work opt out.

    You can say it would be better to get rid of the NLRA and Taft-Hartly altogether, but they don’t actually have that option. The choices are closed shop or right to work.

    1. Don’t confuse the issue by introducing facts.

  21. As good a time to bring up this classic line from the first season of SNL‘s Weekend Update Segment:

    Our top story tonight: dedication ceremonies for the new Teamsters Union Headquarters building took place today in Detroit, where Union President Fitzsimmons was reported to have said that former President Jimmy Hoffa will always be a cornerstone in the organization.

  22. Voluntary union shops are about as likely as voluntary communism.

    The greater danger is the tens of millions of dollars unions extort and hand the Democratic Party every election cycle. Maybe once we fix that, we’ll have a shot at repealing the NLRA, and the rest of the New Deal. Then we need to fix the Constitution so that the threat to “pack the court” (which caused the problem) can’t happen again.

    1. Yup.

      See California.

  23. Way OT — I just watched that barf-inducing CNN duo of Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan.

    AC has a puff piece on strip joints doing ‘Toys for Tatas’ where you get xtra lapdances by bringing in a toy to be donated. Then he makes a scrunchy face when he mentions that there are all-u-can-eat buffets at strip joints. Hey AC – I’d rather eat a strip club meal than stuff a cock in my mouth.

    Then my night was completely ruined when that monarch-fellating twit Piers Morgan devotes his show to gun control. Fuck, man.

    Sorry for the OT, Mr. (Ms?) Tuccille.

    1. Mongo| 12.12.12 @ 9:58PM |#
      …”I just watched t[…] Anderson Cooper”…

      I guess you have my sympathy, but doesn’t your TV have an “off” switch?
      Or couldn’t you unplug it and toss it out the window?
      I’m sure there is some circumstance where that whiny twit could be visible to me and I wouldn’t have control over it, but it’s tough to figure out how.

      1. I enjoyed watching Barbara Stanwyck and Joel McCrea over on TCM.

    2. Then my night was completely ruined when that monarch-fellating twit Piers Morgan devotes his show to gun control.

      Did he have this chick on the set? She certainly owned him on Twitter:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..27699.html

  24. I am still befuddled by this imaginary business owner who desperately yearns to indenture himself to some union. In what way would he benefit? Would this result in more efficiency or higher productivity? What makes him pine for a union affiliation?

    There is no law forbidding “social justice”on the shop floor. The owner is not legally obligated by Right to Work to oppress his workforce. He may, on his own initiative, pay them handsomely while requiring no great output of effort. Would he be incapable of this absent the guidance of a union negotiator?

    1. “There is no law forbidding “social justice”on the shop floor. The owner is not legally obligated by Right to Work to oppress his workforce. He may, on his own initiative, pay them handsomely while requiring no great output of effort. Would he be incapable of this absent the guidance of a union negotiator?”

      Couldn’t the employer also simply arrange to pay some of the wages into a union black-hole? That wouldn’t require the employee to do so, but would accomplish the “desired” result of union interference between the employer and the employees.

      1. “Couldn’t the employer also simply arrange to pay some of the wages into a union black-hole?”

        You mean, write a check to the DNC?

  25. Sorry. You are still offering a straw man argument. If you want to argue for an end to Right to Work AND Taft-Hartley AND Wagner, do it. I’ll join you. You have NOT done that. Of course, RTW does not leave us with a free labor market. No one argues that, and you are wrong to represent it as such.

    1. Uhhh, actually Tucille is advocating an end to RTW, Taft-Hartley, and Wagner. Reread the article, the point is there’s already too much intervention, RTW just adds another layer. Let’s stop the merry-go-round not keep it going.

      And this is not comparable to the drug legalization in CO and WA. They don’t prohibit anything. RTW prohibits both voluntary AND involuntary closed shop agreements. If Wagner were repealed but not RTW (a very possible scenario), it would still ban voluntary closed shops. RTW is pro-business and pro-nonunion, not pro-liberty. Libertarians should be completely neutral about business, nonunion workers and union workers. I honestly don’t want to favor any of these over any others.

      1. And this is not comparable to the drug legalization in CO and WA. They don’t prohibit anything

        It’s very comparable. Those laws make marijuana legal but add new regulations and taxes, which are not supported by libertarians. However, the net gain for liberty is positive, so those laws should be supported. It’s the same with RTW. Ideally we would just remove the restrictive labor laws, but barring that possibility, RTW is still a blow for liberty.

        1. ^Exactly.

          Or take gay marriage. If I was in charge, marriage would be a matter of private and religious authority, and the state would play no part in it. But if the State is going to issue marriage licenses, then any couple that wants one should be able to get one.

          Or like guns. I would prefer Vermont/Arizona/Alaska style carry laws. But I will accept the shall issue laws because they are better then may issue or being totally denied the right to carry.

          Or drugs. I want drugs to be treated like any other product. But I will settle for an ABC style controlled and regulated regime, because it’s better then the current system.

          Or defense spending. I would like to return to the vision of the Founders when it comes to foreign alliances. But for now I will accept getting the hell out of Afghanistan.

      2. “Uhhh, actually Tucille is advocating an end to RTW, Taft-Hartley, and Wagner.”

        True.

        However, only one of these things is on the table. Only one of them has any chance of seeing the light of day in the foreseeable future.

        That’s RTW. Fer it or agin’ it. That’s ALL THERE IS right now.

        Opposing RTW, here and now, on the grounds that it reduced liberty is akin to the environmentalist idiots arguing that we should stop drilling for oil because cars could all run on solar energy.

  26. Chartier’s and Tuccille’s argument makes sense in a political vacuum, but not in the reality we live in.

    After this statement, the rest is window dressing. As long as the Wagner Act is in effect, RTW is the only option…

    1. Agreed. It’s a shitty option, but the best that can be done.

      I found this amusing: http://news.google.com/newspap…..76,1576253

      Gallup poll from 1939 – “2/3 of Americans Favor Repeal of Wagner Act”.

  27. I don’t have a problem with laws that remove laws mandating union membership. Most Right to Work laws are of this nature. There are a few though that try to solve one wrong with another. Both sides want to tell employers who they may or may not hire.

  28. Here’s a point to ponder: how does a State opting out of the NLRB closed-shop requirement through a RTW law differ from a State nullifying it? Other than the RTW option being recognized as legal?

    1. The Taft-Hartley Act explicitly allows states to pass RTW laws

    2. NRLA does not mandate closed-shop agreements. It mandates negotiation with the union, which could lead to a closed-shop agreement or it might not.

      Thus, RTW does not nullify NRLA. NRLA still forces companies to negotiate with unions in RTW states. What RTW does do is prohibit the parties from agreeing to a closed shop (or union shop or agency shop) during that negotiation.

      1. This is exactly right. Ivan Osorio (the critic quoted by Tucille up in his post) was incorrect when he said the NLRA mandates closed shops.

        There are open shops currently operating in Michigan, for instance.

        Now all union contracts in Michigan will have to be that way.

        That’s all that has changed here.

  29. Unions (when elections are certified by DOL) are government entities in all but name. They exercise regulatory coercive powers and collective mandatory taxes as dues. The real solution is to eliminate the process by which they are empowered by the DOL, but right to work is better than nothing. Just like drug legalization is best but medical marijuana regulatory regimes are acceptable.

    The flaw is assuming that a private entity that exercises state-like coercive powers deserves the same deference on the exercise of those powers that a private group deserves when it exercises private powers.

    1. Also, if we’re talking about fair treatment for unions like other entities, then maybe the antitrust exemption for unions should be up for debate. It’s hard to find a more clearcut example of monopoly than “it is illegal to hire workers not approved by this supplier of workers.”

      1. I’ve been trying to parse that through the filter of homeowners associations. And now I have a headache.

    2. “The flaw is assuming that a private entity that exercises state-like coercive powers deserves the same deference on the exercise of those powers that a private group deserves when it exercises private powers.”

      Very well said.

  30. Sure the Market Isn’t Free, So Why Make It Even Less Free With Right-To-Work Laws?

    RTW laws make employees more free, by taking away the power of labor unions to steal part of their paycheck for a union membership the individual does not want.

    Michigan lawmakers do not have the power to overturn federal laws, so their only recourse is to apply such a patch as this.

    1. The individual doesn’t have to work at a union shop. That’s exactly what you’d argue if we we were talking about low wages or poor workplace safety. You, an “anarchist” are opening the door for all sorts of government intervention between employers and employees, and your logic would seem to extend to other spheres.

      I don’t like that my neighbor has pink flamingos in her yard. I think we need a government regulation. Yeah I could choose to move somewhere else, but I don’t want to, and I really don’t want to look at those fucking flamingos.

      1. Another false analogy from Tony.

        Also, the individual working in a shop that goes 51% for the union is screwed and forced to pay up or quit.

        Why can’t they tolerate non union workers in the same shop? Because without force there would be no union at all.

        If an idea cannot exist in reality without forced participation, then it shouldn’t be supported.

        1. The reason mandatory dues and such exist is because nonunion workers get the benefits the unions secure, so it’s sort of like a tax. You may disagree with the policy, but does that mean you get to use government force to impose your preference on all businesses?

          And I don’t recall on any other issue libertarians claiming there exists some kind of right to be employed at a specific workplace, or to certain conditions at that workplace.

          1. It’s a mandated tax from a non government entity? Isn’t that extortion?

            So, you think the free rider issue supports forcing participation in unions? And you think forcing that participation is freedom? Imposing your will upon others is freedom and liberty friendly?

            I mean, I know you’re retarded, but wow…

            OK, free riders aren’t an issue. They can be left out of negotiations and negotiate on their own.

            The real fear is that they will work for LESS and do the same quality job- meaning union workers will be fired and replaced with their cheaper, just as good, alternatives. If this happens then all those dues that go to pay the 6 figure salaries of union bosses disappear. It’s organized crime, man, plain and simple.

            1. Those complaints may be valid, but it’s none of your goddamned business if unions and employers want that kind of arrangement. RTW forbids them from having it–the existence of other laws like NLRA is completely irrelevant. There are probably hundreds of policies that I think tilt the scale toward business. Does that mean I can be in favor of government sticking its nose into all manner of business and still call myself a libertarian?

              1. Those complaints may be valid, but it’s none of your goddamned business if unions and employers want that kind of arrangement.

                Unions want that kind of arrangement. Employers are coerced into that kind of arrangement by NLRB and whatnot. Are you really that retarded?

          2. Also, no one is mandating unions can’t exist. They can. What is being taken away is forcing people to pay to be able to work.

  31. The argument JDT makes is not a libertarian, but anarchist. Forget the NLRB and any political balancing effort. Libertarians, but not anarchists, think that legislation can sometimes increase liberty, by creating limits on the extent to which powerful institutions can exert influence over individuals or by creating standards of accountability for institutions to the public.

    For example, you never hear anyone complaining about the idea that the law requires publicly traded corporations to make periodic disclosures about the condition of their affairs. Except anarchists of course, but not libertarians. Libertarians like the idea of bankruptcy protection, the 13A, and other regulations that limit lenders claims over individuals. Many favor even federal enforcement of the BOR to limit local government authority over individuals.

    So you can’t say that it’s unlibertairian to limit the power of unions over workers with legislation. Even in the absence of NLRB. Libertarians from Smith to Friedman have always recognized the danger to individual liberty not just of governments but also guilds, chambers, associations, and unions. Not anarchist, maybe. But to say it’s not libertarian, you need to say this represents a net loss of bargaining power for individuals, which is an argument way beyond the scope of what JDT has undertaken.

    1. Protefeed says this better in one post than me in two.

      1. Anarchists are a subset of libertarians, John. Anarchists don’t favor socialism at all. Other libertarians favor some limited amounts of socialism for some activities.

        Look at the Nolan chart. Anarchists are at the 100/100 point in the libertarian sector:

        http://www.pure-liberty.org/ne…..0x1000.gif

        1. Yes but not all libertarians are anarchists.

          1. Yes but not all libertarians are anarchists.

            Sure, but you were implying that libertarians and anarchists are entirely separate categories with no overlap with statements like this:

            The argument JDT makes is not a libertarian, but anarchist.

            If the argument JDT made was anarchistic, then it was libertarian.

            Your statement basically assumes all libertarians by definition are minarchists. Ain’t so.

        2. I am a philosophical anarchist.

          I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. Since the only truly free system is no system, but we’re nowhere near anarchy, when I have two options, I’ll pick the one that leaves me with more liberty. I won’t turn it down because it’s not perfect.

          E.g., I think that having the option to carry deadly for self-defense, concealed or not, any time and place, is a natural right. But I paid a few bucks and got my state permit anyway, because here and now, it leaves me closer to being able to exercise that natural right, than going around risking jail time for no good reason.

          1. “deadly weapons”

  32. The argument JDT makes is not a libertarian, but anarchist. Forget the NLRB and any political balancing effort. Libertarians, but not anarchists, think that legislation can sometimes increase liberty, by creating limits on the extent to which powerful institutions can exert influence over individuals or by creating standards of accountability for institutions to the public.

    For example, you never hear anyone complaining about the idea that the law requires publicly traded corporations to make periodic disclosures about the condition of their affairs. Except anarchists of course, but not libertarians. Libertarians like the idea of bankruptcy protection, the 13A, and other regulations that limit lenders claims over individuals. Many favor even federal enforcement of the BOR to limit local government authority over individuals.

    So you can’t say that it’s unlibertairian to limit the power of unions over workers with legislation. Even in the absence of NLRB. Libertarians from Smith to Friedman have always recognized the danger to individual liberty not just of governments but also guilds, chambers, associations, and unions. Not anarchist, maybe. But to say it’s not libertarian, you need to say this represents a net loss of bargaining power for individuals, which is an argument way beyond the scope of what JDT has undertaken.

  33. Libertarians, but not anarchists, think that legislation can sometimes increase liberty

    I’m an anarchist. I think legislation that repeals unjust laws can increase liberty. RTW laws basically nullify laws that allow unions to use government force to steal from employees.

    Plus, anarchists aren’t against laws or legislation per se — just against monopoly criminal gangs (read: government) doing that to take away freedom. We generally have no problem with voluntary organizations (such as the Mormon church) passing rules governing the conduct of those members who have joined voluntarily (such as their rules against drinking and drugs and non-marital sex), and then enforcing those rules against those members (in their private religious courts) — if said members can quit if they disagree with those rulings.

    1. I don’t think anarchist means what you think it means.

      An anarchist being in favor of any legislation at all belies the fact that he or she is not actually an anarchist at all.

      1. Because the revolution needs to be in one step or not at all. From page one of the libertarian guide to failure.

      2. You didn’t read his post, Spencer.

      3. So, if there was a law created saying “Anyone who has ever posted on the internet using the handle “Spencer” should be shot”, and then that law was repealed, anyone who applauded that repeal can’t REALLY be an anarchist?

        How do you get to zero government if nobody repeals what they do?

  34. Corporate America makes me ill. Greed and corruption, underpaying and exploiting the American workforce. Its pathetic!

    http://www.DouAnon.tk

    1. That’s pretty rich coming from a pedophile, pedobot.

  35. I’m all in favor of a House of Repeal that can simply revoke bad laws. Until then, I would prefer to work in a RTW state.

    1. Pretty much. Turcille is basically asking us to ignore reality and instead pretend that we live in Libertarian Rainbow Puppy Island. If RTW is so bad and so anti-freedom, why do RTW states do so much better economically?

      1. Yeah, I love JD, but I’m with you – this is reality v theoretical, and I’m not opposed to “less-bad” law replacing “shitty” law when there’s GONNA be a law. Yeah – ideal = “no meddling”. We’re not living in the “ideal”, or even the “pretty good” – so I’ll take “less shitty”, thanks very much.

        SLD, of course…

  36. The logic here is poor. Poor logic defending poor logic.

  37. The claim that businesses are “beleaguered” and that unions are in some golden age of government favoritism is ludicrous. Unions barely exist anymore. RTW laws are designed specifically to destroy them further. Not because it’s good for workers, but because it’s good for Republicans, who don’t like Democrats having organized support. The end.

    But it’s good that some libertarians are tilting their hand. It’s really not about free markets at all, it’s about bullshit big business-funded crotchety right-wing manufactured outrage. Not that that’s any kind of surprise.

    1. But it’s good that some libertarians are tilting their hand. It’s really not about free markets at all, it’s about bullshit big business-funded crotchety right-wing manufactured outrage.

      I have little doubt there are some George Babbits in some Chambers of Commerce somewhere who think this way, but which “libertarians” are you alluding to here? And no, I’m not just getting all no-true-scotsman on your ass.

      1. All the ones here who’ve suddenly discovered the virtue of government intervention between two private parties.

        1. Except that they’ve stated their actual reason for backing RTW, and it wasn’t “bullshit big-business crotchety right-wing manufactured outrage.”

          How about tackling their argument on its merits, rather than the hyperbolic strawman your brain has invented?

          1. Their actual reasons are laughable, hypocritical nonsense.

            1. OK, then laugh, and meticulously dissect the hypocrisy through an argument.

              But stuff like this — “bullshit big-business crotchety right-wing manufactured outrage” — just derails shit every time, causing all these wasted minutes as we wrestle away the strawman you’re sitting there beating on.

              1. It seems pretty simple. RTW is government forbidding employers and employees from making a certain kind of arrangement, even if they want to. It is a clear-cut government restriction on liberty.

                The laughable hypocritical bullshit is the sudden miraculous discovery of the value of using government force to certain social ends, namely harming unions. I’m not disagreeing with the logic necessarily, I’m wondering if you guys realize just how far it extends.

                1. It’s not using government force to certain social ends. It’s using government force to counter government force. We’d be perfectly happy to just repeal the law that initiated force. Until that’s an option, RTW laws are the next best thing.

        2. All the ones who’ve discovered the virtue of government intervention to counterbalance an existing government intervention. Repealing the Wagner Act is our preferred option, but that’s not going to happen.

          It’s no more unlibertarian than supporting marijuana decriminalization/regulation since a free market in marijuana is not in the cards.

          1. It’s especially unlibertarian because it is government forbidding a certain arrangement between employers and unions. It is deliberalization of workplace-related laws, whereas marijuana decriminalization is a liberalization of drug policy.

            Even though you’re ignoring the Taft-Hartley amendments to the NLRA, all you’re really saying is you don’t like unions and you’re OK with government sticking it’s nose in as long as it’s to damage unions.

            1. Taft-Hartley does not make it legal to fire workers for trying to unionize. Taft-Hartley does not abolish the requirement to negotiate “in good faith” (to be decided by a government bureaucrat) with a certified union. Taft-Hartley does not allow the employer to scrap negotiations if an impasse is reached. Any contract signed under those circumstances is a contract signed under duress. Any contract signed under duress is invalid.

              1. Is it duress if a worker is offered less pay than he wants?

                The right to unionize does conflict with the right of employers to fire you for unionizing. A conflict of rights, omg. I think the former is more relevant to freedom than the latter–unless you think freedom means employers get to do whatever they want and workers get to shut up and take it.

                1. Poor logic from Tony.

                  Freedom absolutely means the employers get to fire you for any reason- not do what ever they want. You can’t equate to own the language of the argument Tony.

                  No one is OWED a job. They can negotiate for wages. They can do so collectively. But what they shouldn’t be able to do is force all employees to either join the collective negotiations or quit his job. Oh, and to join the collective negotiations, they have to pay a percentage of their wages to the union bosses.

                  It’s not about the employers only- it’s about the rights of the workers who want to stay independent of the collective agreement.

                2. The right to unionize does conflict with the right of employers to fire you for unionizing.

                  The right to unionize is not the same thing as the right to a job. In an ideal world, you can unionize, and your employer can choose to fire you for it or not. There is no conflict of rights there.

                3. The right to unionize does conflict with the right of employers to fire you for unionizing. A conflict of rights, omg.

                  No it doesn’t. Having the right to collectively bargain is libertarian. Having the right to terminate employment for any reason, including because someone is trying to collectively bargain, is libertarian. Neither of those rights conflict.

                  That is, until the government uses laws to force the employer to recognize and bargain with the union. Then it is a conflict between an individual RIGHT and a government POWER.

            2. It’s especially unlibertarian because it is government forbidding a certain arrangement between employers and unions.

              I know, I know, the ignorance is invincible, but still . . . .

              Government already forbids many, many arrangements between employers and unions. Including, most especially, a purely voluntary one following a union certification. It makes no sense to speak of a company voluntarily agreeing to a closed shop, when nothing about that agreement is voluntary.

              What a closed shop amounts to is a union, having already forced itself on the employer against its will, using that involuntary and coerced relationship to leverage an involuntary and coerced relationship with employees.

              RTW gets rid of the second set of involuntary and coerced relationships, without really affecting in any meaningful way the underlying involuntary and coerced relationship.

              How that’s a net loss to liberty, I really can’t see.

    2. And here we see Tony’s usual M.O.: create and denounce a strawman while ignoring actual libertarian arguments. RTW laws are a counter to the Wagner Act, as has been explained to you countless times over the past few days.

      1. No, Taft-Hartley accomplished that goal. RTW is what I described above.

        You guys quite clearly are going to contort libertarian principles in whatever way necessary to be in favor of damaging unions. This “legislation to counter legislation” excuse is a pretty slippery slope. It’s kind of like all your criticisms of activist government over the years amount to a pile of horseshit.

        1. Taft-Hartley did not repeal the Wagner Act, moron. Union certification is still a thing, as are unfair labor practices.

          1. What’s wrong with the NRLA as amended by Taft-Harley? The right to collectively bargain is an increase in liberty.

            I don’t think you guys are cut out for this libertarian business. Half of you can’t even support no-brainers like marriage equality. I think I agree with the columnists more often than the commenters disagree with Rush Limbaugh here.

            1. The right to collectively bargain is an increase in liberty.

              Workers would have that right in the absence of any labor laws.

              Of course, they might have a hard time finding a company willing to collectively bargain with them. But someone else’s reluctance to bargain with you is not a restriction on your rights.

              In other terms, the “right to collectively bargain” is properly seen as a negative right (that is, government shouldn’t outlaw it), but is being treated by Spacy as if it were a positive right (that is, government should use its coercive powers to provide it to you).

            2. Yes clearly Tony – a braindead progressive – is the arbiter of what libertarianism is. Even though every post he makes is nothing but a strawman about libertarianism.

              1. You’re making quite a mockery of libertarianism without any help from me.

              2. Yes clearly Tony – a braindead progressive – is the arbiter of what libertarianism is.

                Hey man i am just happy that Tony actually read a reason article.

                not Tony’s fault that J.D. Tuccille thinks 0 (number of businesses that want unions) is a larger number then workers who want jobs without unions taking their money.

                1. Zero businesses may want unions, but zero workers might want to show up on time. The point is you might not want something but you might agree to it anyway. The repeated meme here that no businesses want a closed shop is a non seqitur. The point is not what businesses want, it’s what they’re willing to live with in exchange for union labor.

        2. In other words, you think libertarians should not support gay marriage laws or marijuana regulations that accompany decriminalization either.

          1. They should favor increased liberty in all instances. RTW decreases liberty.

            It’s one thing to discover the value of government activism, but when it’s to decrease liberty?

            1. As long as the Wagner Act exists, RTW laws increase liberty.

            2. Prove the point that RTW decreases liberty please.

              Oh, wait, you can’t. Neither could the author of this article.

    3. RTW laws are designed specifically to destroy them further.

      If you’ve got an institution that will be destroyed because people can freely choose not to support it, maybe it isn’t worth keeping.

  38. Chartier’s and Tuccille’s argument makes sense in a political vacuum, but not in the reality we live in. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which regulates all private sector labor relations in the U.S. (except for railroads and airlines), mandates closed shops, while allowing states to opt out of the closed shop mandate through right-to-work laws. So, under the NLRA, closed union shops can be either mandated or forbidden.

    This is false, Taft-Hartley already outlaws closed shops. RTW laws outlaw agency shops.

    1. For practical purposes, an agency shop is a closed shop- with the provision that you can pay the union but not HAVE to be a member. You still have to pay to work there.

      It’s a weaselly and around.

    2. Also false because NLRA does NOT mandate a closed shop or even an agency shop. It mandates negotiation with an exclusive collective bargaining representative. That negotiation may OR may not lead to a closed shop agreement between employer and union.

  39. Thanks for the article J.D.

    Conservatives always rant about purist libertarianism when we don’t go along with their right-wing fascism like right-to-work.

    But are you pushing the correct Libertarian solution? Focus on automatic choice of unions.

    For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.