From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,sci.econ,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Real Voice of Adam Smith
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:36:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, urkastig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Robert Kastigar) says:

>In Article 12 of alt.amateur-comp, Michael Hauben wrote. . .
>--------------------------     
>     Much is made of the "father of deregulation." Adam Smith has
>been designated such by many in the field of economics. His
>connection takes on a mythical role. These connections are taken
>for granted, and perhaps, like mythical legends are not always
>true. Adam Smith's beliefs have been stereotyped so when someone
>says "individuality" or "deregulation", we are supposed to think
>"Adam Smith." The actual reading of Smith's books must be a
>curiosity because he constantly winds up supporting the rights of
>workers and seeking a fair relationship between employers and
>workers. While Smith is connected to "laissez faire" economics,
>throughout The Wealth of Nations, there is a strong sentiment
>that society is better off when the common worker is treated
>good.
>---------------------------
>
>It IS possible to have it both ways!  
>
>In some things, but not all things the relationship between employer
>and worker are, and will always be, adversarial.  A common mistake
>is to assume that an adversarial relationship is bad and steps should
>be taken to minimize the adversarial nature of the relationship.  
>For example: the adversarial nature of the relationship between a
>prosecution and defense attorney is a method for seeking justice.
>
Interesting. This is a helpful clarification. The relationship
is adversarial and thus it is appropriate to recognize that. But
what the above clarifies is that there thru the adversarial process
something helpful happens.

>While the employer may control the land and captital necessary for
>production, the worker is in control of the labor.  However, to 
>maximize this control, the workers need to unite - to form a strong
>cohesive force.  Hence, the need for STRONG UNIONS of workers.  
>

It's nice to see a post that realizes that recognizes the significance
of labor and of workers in production. And as employers unite
so workers need to unite. There are lots of organizations of
employers like NAM and the CED that one rarely hears about.
Hence workers have found they need to unite and form unions.

>It is possible, even desirable, as Adam Smith says, to maintain a
>"laissez faire" attitude of government in this area.  The strength
>of the unions will balance the strength of the employer - because
>without labor capitalism grinds to a halt.  

No Adam Smith doesn't say that "laissez faire" in such an area
is helpful, at least anywhere that I know of.

To the contrary, he shows that the interests of workers and employers
are opposing and that there must be suspicion regarding political 
proposals of those representing the interests of the employers as they
often are out to deceive the public. He writes: 

  "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which
   comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with
   great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after
   having been long and carefully examined, not only with the 
   most scupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.

Smith explains why he says this:
  
  "It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never
   exactly the same with that of the public, who have
   generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress 
   the public, and who accordingly have, upon many 
   occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
     Wealth of Nations (Modern Libary Edition) p. 250

Smith, on the contrary, maintains, that workers have the SAME INTEREST
as the public and thus his interests should be supported by the public.
Smith writes:

  "The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages,
   is ...strictly connected with the interest of the society."
               (Ibid., p. 249)

So Smith differentiates between those class interests which benefit
the public and those which don't and he finds that the interests of
workers benefit the public and the interests of employers most often
don't.

>
>In the 1930's, government recognized the need for the workers to
>form united associations to deal freely with their employers, and this
>resulted in the Wagner Act, which legitimized unions.  The Wagner Act
>was a law that minimized government interference.  
>
I recently saw a Kalamazoo newspaper from 1937 describing the Wagner
Act. It complained that the Wagner Act promoted government interference.
The government was restricting the right of EMPLOYERS to interfere
with unions.

The National Labor Relations Act was not, as far as I understand it,
a minimizing of government interference, though that is the 
current trend of nonenforcement of the law that it carries out.
To the contrary, it was the government interfering in the right of
employers to create company unions, to pay the union dues of their
workers, etc.

Such government interference is very much needed or it is impossible
for workers to have UNIONS that are other than COMPANY UNIONS.

When I worked at Ford, my union dues was paid by the employer. I 
took the case to the NLRB and to the State equivalent at the 
Michigan Dept of Labor. The National Labor Relations Act and the 
state equivalents forbid the employer from paying the union dues
of their workers. This is a significant and important form of 
government regulations. (I was not allowed to pay my own union
dues and thus I was not allowed to have a union that was other
than a company union.) The NLRB found an excuse NOT to enforce
the law. The case has been at the State level (with the Michigan
Department of Labor) since 1986 and I haven't yet gotten a decision
from them.

But the point is that GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS NEEDED FOR WORKERS
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE UNIONS. 

The relationship between employers and employees is not equal. 
The employer can threaten workers and deprive them of their
livelihood if they want to stop them from joining unions.
Hence the government has to INTERFERE boldly on the side of workers
and regulate that the employers DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WORKER'S
RIGHT TO FORM AND HAVE UNIONS.

As long as the U.S. govt doesn't enforce these regulations (and I 
found that they weren't enforcing them) the right of workers in the 
U.S. to join unions is severely limited. If the worker who wants to
be in a union is fired once the employer realizes that the worker is
pro union - there is no right to be in a union. That's what happened
when I was at Ford. The government still hasn't imposed its force 
letting Ford know that it could not interfere with my right to be
in a union. The right to belong to unions thus is not available to
many workers at companies that act to terminate workers when they
try to form unions.

The thousands of pages of testimony at the LaFollette Committee hearings
in Washington in the 1930's documenting the many ways that employers
in the largest corporations in the U.S. interfered with the workers
right to be in a union - show that the CIO in the U.S. was only possible
when the U.S. govt imposed government regulation in favor of unions.

>Somewhat later, many feared the strength of this newly legitimized
>force in society.  They were able to persuade the government that it
>was necessary for government to pass laws to "restore the balance."
>As admirable a goal as 'restoring balance' may seem, it isn't always
>possible to achieve it, nor it may not always be desireable.  It may
>be best to follow "laissez faire."  But, as a result of this pressure, the
>Taft-Harley Act was passed, and unlike the liberating effect of the 
>Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act re-imposed new government regulations.
>
Do you know what Taft-Hartley does actually that makes being in a union
harder?

>Those adherents to Adam Smith's "strong hand of the marketplace" should
>recognize that, left to their own devices without government regulation,
>the employer and the collective worker will truly be free to negotiate
>mutually agreeable terms and conditions of employment and pay.  And
>both will be constrained in their relationship by this "strong hand."

So Adam Smith comes out in favor of government supporting workers in
their battle with the employer, not for laissez faire in this area,
as far as I read him.

It is myth that the marketplace works - it doesn't and Adam Smith
clarifies that it doesn't.

>

-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,alt.co-evolution