Comments on Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Another Free-for-All: Libertarian Class Analysis,...

Miguel,Thanks very much for taking the effort to r...

2007-05-29T21:27:00.000-07:00

Miguel,

Thanks very much for taking the effort to resolve this troublesome question after all this time. I'm amending the post yet again to reflect your finding.

"Anyway, for the record, if NLRB certification DOE...

2007-05-29T19:44:00.000-07:00

"Anyway, for the record, if NLRB certification DOES automatically result in a union shop(absent a right-to-work law), I consider that an injustice."

I put this question in a discussion page of wikipedia and, apperently, it's not the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-to-work_law#Answer_to_.22Question_about_RtW_laws.2C_union_shops.2C_etc..22

P.S.: The NLRB does not create closed shops, only ...

2006-01-28T11:20:00.000-08:00

P.S.: The NLRB does not create closed shops, only union shops; that is, you do not have to be a member of the union before being hired. But you do have to join within a specified period, or pay dues anyway.

By the way, this is why there is a push on for a national "right to work" law. Advocates of "right to work" often concede that it is a form of government intervention, but they say that is necessary because of the prior intervention (NLRA), which is not likely to be repealed any time soon. I find this a weak argument.

Charles Baird, a labor economist, union critic, an...

2006-01-28T11:04:00.000-08:00

Charles Baird, a labor economist, union critic, and Freeman author, has often stated that once a union is NLRB-certified, the employer has no choice but to deal with it and may not bargain with individual employees, who must pay dues, or fees if they abstain from joining. It's called exclusive representation. That would not occur in a "right-to-work" state, of course. Another Freeman author, George Leef, points out in a forthcoming article that unionists James Pope, Peter Kellman, and Ed Bruno in the Spring 2001 "WorkingUSA" objected to exclusive representation, claiming it harms dissenters who would rather bargain alone or through a minority union. Their complaint is the standard one against any protected monopoly.

Ross,You're right: there is legal protection for ...

2006-01-27T14:23:00.000-08:00

Ross,

You're right: there is legal protection for minority unionism. The IWW's Alexis Buss also addressed that in the links I posted. But since I oppose federal labor law in principle and prefer direct action outside that framework, I deliberately left it out.

Sheldon,

My own understanding has been that the purpose of right-to-work laws was to prohibit closed/union shops, which would otherwise be attainable by simple contract between employer and union. But it wouldn't be the first time something I was dead certain of turned out to be wrong. If either you or KipEsquire has evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Anyway, for the record, if NLRB certification DOES automatically result in a union shop(absent a right-to-work law), I consider that an injustice. I support a legal regime where a union shop is permitted by voluntary contract, but not legally mandated, and unions are not required to represent non-members.

"Organization of an NLRB-certified union does not,...

2006-01-27T03:18:00.000-08:00

"Organization of an NLRB-certified union does not, in and of itself, create a closed shop. It is possible for a majority of workers in a bargaining unit to vote to certify a local, without everyone being required to join. A right-to-work law prohibits an employer from including a closed/union shop clause in the labor contract."

Kevin, please elaborate or post a link on this. It has been my understanding that NLRB certification means that employees have to join the majority union or at least pay dues, regardless of what the employer wants. Please straighten me out on this.

Kevin: One labor scholar is of the opinion that c...

2006-01-26T23:16:00.000-08:00

Kevin: One labor scholar is of the opinion that current labor law [retrograde as it is] protects the rights of even a minority of workers at a workplace to organize and bargain collectively. I quote from the front flap of the book he wrote:

"In 'The Blue Eagle at Work' (2004), Charles J. Morris, a renowned labor law scholar and preeminent authority on the National Labor Relations Act, uncovers a long-forgotten feature of that act that offers an exciting new approach to the revitalization of the American labor movement and the institution of collective bargaining. He convincingly demonstrates that in private-sector nonunion workplaces, the Act guarantees that employees have a viable right to engage in collective bargaining through a minority union on a members-only basis. As a result of this startling breakthrough, American labor relations may never again be the same. Morris’s underlying thesis is based on a meticulous analysis of statutory and decisional law and exhaustive historical research.
Morris recounts the little-known history of union organizing and bargaining through members-only minority unions that prevailed widely both before and after passage of the 1935 Wagner Act. He explains how vintage language in the statute continues to protect minority-union bargaining today and how those rights are also guaranteed under the First Amendment and by international law to which the United States is a committed party. In addition, the book supplies detailed guidelines illustrating how this rediscovered workers’ right could stimulate the development of new procedures for union organizing and bargaining and how management will likely respond to such efforts."

Additionally, it is the law in every state except Montana that unless there is a contract to the contrary, employment is at-will, and the employment relationship may be terminated by employer or employee without notice or cause (but not for an illegal reason, e.g., race). Montana, on the other hand, "has abolished the "employment-at-will" status. In Montana, an employer can fire an employee who has completed a probationary period only for good cause. "Good cause" is defined as reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of operations, or other legitimate business reason." (CCH Business Owner's Tookit: Legal Restrictions on Firing, http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P05_8105.asp .)

Thanks for your posts and keep up the good work!

kipesquire,I stand by my statement. Organization ...

2006-01-26T19:26:00.000-08:00

kipesquire,

I stand by my statement. Organization of an NLRB-certified union does not, in and of itself, create a closed shop. It is possible for a majority of workers in a bargaining unit to vote to certify a local, without everyone being required to join. A right-to-work law prohibits an employer from including a closed/union shop clause in the labor contract.

Dain,

You raise an interesting question. I raised Rothbard's example of a state university as much for the purpose of providing a libertarian counter-example, as to endorse it in its own right. I agree with Long's and Hobbs' ideas on common property, rights of way, etc. But even in such cases, the question remains of whether the state is a legitimate steward of such common property. A transit workers' syndicate, a cooperative organization of commuters, or some combination of the two, would surely be preferable. And any action by either that weakened the state's administrative control would be a step in the right direction.

Although I can see a debate brewing given the abov...

2006-01-26T19:06:00.000-08:00

Although I can see a debate brewing given the above comment, hopefully my own comment will be addressed.
Kevin, while reading Randall Holcombe's article on Common Property in an older JLS, he makes the point that state "property" that has been in a state of common ownership (usership?) by all those that use it - parks and libraries especially (not housing projects) - could not rightfully be privatized without an injustice being committed. I found it persuasive.
Given your support of a homesteading ethic with regard to state workers, could the workers, in your opinion, rightfully decide to alter the purpose of the former state facility for any new purpose they choose, even if it meant "closing it off" to the hordes of previous users/patrons who had "mixed their labor" with it as well (perhaps debatable, and in fact Long's example was a common foot path), and thus were also owners? Seems to me that anyone asserting a change in the function of the facility and its historic open-ness would be acting unjustly; though protecting its function (by booting out someone attempting to start a fire in the former state library for instance) would not be unjust. Upkeep would be paid for voluntarily, as efforts to extract money forcibly would mean that some were more "owners" than others.
Any thoughts? Sorry if I rambled on...

-Dain

"In other words, the employee is required to join ...

2006-01-26T18:28:00.000-08:00

"In other words, the employee is required to join the union and pay union dues by the employer."

That is patently false. You simply do not know what you're talking about. If the employees of a private firm vote to unionize in accordance with the NLRA, then the firm becomes a union shop and all future employees must either join the union or at least pay dues. It is by government fiat, not the whim of the firm, that unions arise.

My response to Kennedy stands.