Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant.
The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse.
Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
> Any worker can unionize, but not all workers can. Akin to saying everyone can be rich and have a servant.
The barrier to entry for unionizing is a lot lower than getting rich and hiring a servant. That is not a comparable situation. Incredibly poor labourers and rich professionals alike unionize.
> you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.
We have completely voluntary unionism in my industry and people join the union voluntarily. You seem to have a _very_ skewed view of unions that only takes the negatives.
My union (Professionals Australia) takes a pragmatic view to labour relations. I resigned from my previous union because they didn't take that view and focussed on short-term gains for only a subset of their members.
Trade unions are the easiest example of monopolization of labor. I bet you a bitcoin they either lobby to require professional degrees to excercise labor or give out their own. Tell me if i should give you an address.
Professional licenses are one of the most classic examples of limiting supply. Classic as Adam smith, wealth of nations, 1776 classic, where he talks about the artificial restriction of a certain number of years of study to be able to exercise some labor skill.
Ugh my union does no such thing - but you won't believe me so let's just stop there hey?
Even if it did, I have no moral objection to labour banding together to restrict supply. It's just the free market in action. Actors (capital, labour, consumer) are free to band together and increase their functional power.
There is no perfect state of equilibrium in a market, just a temporary pause. Same goes for capital and labour - what works now won't work tomorrow and so constant tension and negotiation will occur. Some parties will lose and some will win. Either way the situation is merely temporary.
Or is the free market just for capital to band together to increase it's power?
I just went over the website a bit. Its interesting.
First, there is this RPEng, which is exactly what I thought it would have. They do certification.
It also has an interesting advocacy section:
- "At least 10% of the work carried out on Victoria’s major projects must be undertaken by apprentices, trainees or engineering cadets...we were able to make the case, and change Government policy."
On Privatisation of power
- "As well, privatisation resulted in large reductions of the number of staff employed as well as significant outsourcing of important functions"
If you asked me, I'd say its unavoidable for unions to do these kind of actions the same way its unavoidable for private companies to try to monopolize a market. Its the basic incentive.
> Even if it did, I have no moral objection to labour banding together to restrict supply. It's just the free market in action. Actors (capital, labour, consumer) are free to band together and increase their functional power.
Sure, thats not really a problem at all. There are plenty of circumstances where that will provide real and palpable defenses against employers that have powers that shouldn't be. But dont mistake the debate of allowing unions to exist, and encouraging them.
Much like the biggest employer monopolies, the biggest union results come through the government. Unions lobby for the government to put rules, like the eng cadets or limit outsourcing, or require accreditations given by them, etc etc. If you had a union that didnt have the power of government to apply those rules, they wouldn't be very relevant.
> There is no perfect state of equilibrium in a market, just a temporary pause. Same goes for capital and labour - what works now won't work tomorrow and so constant tension and negotiation will occur. Some parties will lose and some will win. Either way the situation is merely temporary.
Or is the free market just for capital to band together to increase it's power?
This is a common theme I find on this topic: capital monopolizes and gets profits they shouldnt, so why shouldnt workers do the same?
Well, two wrongs dont make a right, and someone being a criminal and profiting from it doesn't mean we should all become criminals. Free markets are precisely a tool against forming monopolies, both on companies and on labor.
The prohibition of unions was a terrible thing indeed, and unions themselves have also been producers of tremendous violence, murder and oppression. There are no short examples of abuse.
Nevertheless, any union that has significant effects has them by providing new limitations on labor. You don't need to ban unions to make them dissapear, you just have to let labor roam free and then they dissipate instantly.