Could Union's exist in a free market society?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

How would the free market handle unionizing?

[bruce leeroy]

How would the free market handle unionizing?

I read barry goldwater's book and he had an interesting perspective on unions
rather than one union for a whole industry, one union per corportation.
I think that might be amenable to a free market perspective on economics

[Acala]

Unions could exist in the free market if they could either offer some advantage to the employer - like efficiency in contracting - or if the supply of labor was tight and employees found an advantage in being unionized.

[RedStripe]

In a truly free market, and over a long period of time, unions most likely would not be necessary due to the elimination of large-scale wage slavery/exploitation of the poor by the state-backed industrial/corporate monopolists.

[Elwar]

They could probably work in short spurts to get past overzealous employers.

Employees could gather on their own and threaten a strike unless their needs are met. The employer has to weigh his options of meeting their needs, losing the productivity for the amount of time of the strike, or spending the time and money to hire new employees.

If the demands are reasonable enough then the employer would most likely choose to cooperate. Especially if the workers are skilled and there aren't enough workers to replace the current employees.

[Sola_Fide]

Unions would not be neccessary if corporatism did not exist.


Intervention causes the "need" for unionization, which in turn causes more intervention.

[Bman]

Some companies actually would opt to have unions for ease of negotiations. When you have 1000 people doing the same job sometimes it's easier to just set the bar at one level.

[AuH2O]

Some companies actually would opt to have unions for ease of negotiations. When you have 1000 people doing the same job sometimes it's easier to just set the bar at one level.

I'm not so sure . . . wouldn't that just discourage outstanding work and protect underperformers?

[Bman]

I'm not so sure . . . wouldn't that just discourage outstanding work and protect underperformers?

I guess that would depend on the system. I'm not saying many would opt for unions. I just don't think they'd completely disappear. With quota's you'd get what you expected. You're right that you wouldn't, more than likely, be hiring people who would go beyond there abilities, but I'm not so sure every business model needs to employ in that manner.

[ChaosControl]

Unions are the way to improve working conditions and wages rather than relying on government regulations. Of course they could exist in a free market society.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not so sure . . . wouldn't that just discourage outstanding work and protect underperformers?

That's exactly what it does, and I've worked union before.

Guess what?

Lots of employers, especially very large ones, like that.

It's easier for them to deal with a whole herd of mundanes than the up and down variations of talents, work ethics and thinking patterns that exhibit itself in an average cross section of people.

The good ones get taken down a notch and don't present a threat, while the bad ones are shuffled along to do a minimum of work without the hassle of firings.

[Sentient Void]

I don't see any reason to believe simple unions wouldn't exist within a free market. Natural unions are merely skilled workers uniting in order to more easily communicate the needs and desires of the workers, and for employers to meet with them and concede or find a compromise - or establish that they're simply being utterly ridiculous with their demands if/when other potential workers can offer the employer a better value in regards to skill/productivity/pay.

It's special govt protections, subsidies, special interests and regulations that distort it all and give unions ridiculous power over their employers... And the same reason goes for large corporations and their special interests. Get the govt out of it and all will work it self out the way it should.

However I would also imagine that over time under a legitimately free market (or at least a mostly free one), the need for unions would dwindle.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't see any reason to believe simple unions wouldn't exist within a free market. Natural unions are merely skilled workers uniting in order to more easily communicate the needs and desires of the workers, and for employers to meet with them and concede or find a compromise - or establish that they're simply being utterly ridiculous with their demands if/when other potential workers can offer the employer a better value in regards to skill/productivity/pay.

It's special govt protections, subsidies, special interests and regulations that distort it all and give unions ridiculous power over their employers... And the same reason goes for large corporations and their special interests. Get the govt out of it and all will work it self out the way it should.

However I would also imagine that over time under a legitimately free market (or at least a mostly free one), the need for unions would dwindle.

Yeah that ^^^

[Old Ducker]

Trade Unions, yes. Public Employee Unions, no.

Trade Unions, would be better off, well their members would be...no point in greasing the hands of politicians.

[WaltM]

In a truly free market, and over a long period of time, unions most likely would not be necessary due to the elimination of large-scale wage slavery/exploitation of the poor by the state-backed industrial/corporate monopolists.

in a utopian world that doesn't exist, over time, some things would disappear.

I think I get it.

[RedStripe]

in a utopian world that doesn't exist, over time, some things would disappear.

I think I get it.

I don't. ;)

[Legend1104]

I think they would exist, but would mostly be despised. Look at the industrial revolution. You read in textbooks that unions really picked up speed during the American Industrial Revolution and helped to get better conditions for workers; and that they were praised by the people, but that is not true. Even up until 1900 Union membership was below 10% and most people saw Unions as violent troublemakers. I wouldn't see why the free market could not take care of most problems yelled about by Unions.

[mediahasyou]

We can only speculate if unions WOULD exist.

However, unions COULD exist if they use non aggressive tactics. If unions use aggressive tactics, the market wouldn't be free.

[libertybrewcity]

they would and should exist. it is voluntarism in a very important form.

[Jace]

How would the free market handle unionizing?

My guess is that in a free market where people are free to associate, of course unions would exist.

But, if a union were to get powerful enough to extract excessive concessions from management, i.e., exhorbitant wages, benefits and overly generous work conditions, then the company would suffer. The cost of production would rise and profits would fall as labor costs became burdensome.

In the past, abusive union power has driven management to invest in automation, or it has left an opening for competitors with lower labor costs to gain market share. A poorly led union that is abusive will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In a free market, competition and the threat of bankruptcy should work as a restraint on union demands.

When management and labor work together toward a common goal -- such as building great cars -- and labor is compensated fairly while working professionally, then quality vehicles will be produced at a fair price. Everything is in balance and everyone gains.

But humans don't work that way. When one side gains power, it tends to abuse the other side for short-term gain to the detriment of all.

I worked for a unionized company when it bought a non-unionized one. Our union wanted to get the workers at the new company to join up, but they were skeptical. They had never unionized because workers and the owner had a good relationship, so the workers feared that a union would result in a conflictual relationship with management, something they didn't want. The way our union got them to join was by pointing out that our owner had a history of abusing his workforce, and if we didn't band together we would be used and abused.

I believe that shareholders have temporarily found a way around labor's demands. In my opinion, abusive unions motivated shareholders to push for NAFTA, and motivated them to offshore and outsource production to China and India, where labor is cheap and not organized, where union power is non-existent, and where management reigns supreme. Also illegal immigration and the H1B visa have severely weakened the American worker's position.

I'm not that well-read on India, but in China, unions are illegal. China is an authoritarian nation and there is no freedom to associate. The army and police are on the side of management and will crack skulls if workers organize and make demands.

Right now in the US, management, or shareholders, anyway, have the upper hand, as globalization and mass immigration have weakened the bargaining power of the American worker. Chinese authoritarianism suppresses union formation there, and crushing poverty elsewhere means indigent workers will slave away for the right to exist.

On the other end of the spectrum, the public sector unions in the US currently have the upper hand, and they are abusing their power. At the local level, the excessive pay, pensions and benefits for public sector workers are bankrupting municipalities. At the federal level, we are being buried in debt as government pay reaches all time highs.

I think what it all comes down to is leadership. Right now we have a surplus of rotten leaders. When leadership is rotten, negative consequences ensue -- unions or no unions.

[WaltM]

I don't. ;)

you don't get what you're dreaming of yourself?

welcome to fantasy land (aka utopia, aka anarcho capitalism, aka no-statist land)

[Icymudpuppy]

In a truly free market, there would probably not be any mega-corps. We all know that the larger the organization, the less efficient it becomes. There is a growth point where it will be impossible for any business that doesn't have the ability to stomp out new upstarts with government regulations and lobbying to compete against those smaller more efficient upstarts.

Without mega-corps, there would be no need for unions because the workers will actually be individually identifiable to management, and their value as a worker known enough to accurately negotiate their wages individually.