From: urkastig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Robert Kastigar)
Subject: Re: The Real Voice of Adam Smith
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:38:26 GMT

> 
>You have a conceptual mioosunderstanding. Saying that Ford paid your
>dues is like saying Ford paid your income taxes. They distributed money
>to you, some of which was redistributed to other agencies. The union dues
>were paid directly to the union because the unions in Michigan have
>privileges
>that go far beyond those in most other states. We have "Union Shop" laws
>in which employees can be coerced into paying dues even if they choose not
>to belong to a union.
> 
>What you experienced was not undue exercise of power by Ford, but by the
>UAW.
>>

Waitaminute, Mike: there's another way of looking at it:

If the majority of the employees vote union, then the union represents
the employees.  If the union and the employer MUTUALLY AGREE that 
everybody must pay union dues, then that becomes a condition of
employment.  

A new guy (or gal) shows up and applies for a job.  The boss says
"OK, if you want the job, you need to know about the conditions of
employment, which are:
   1. You must show up on time
   2. You must pay union dues
   3. (...probably more, but you get the idea)"

The individual applicant is FREE to reject the job because of these
conditions of employment, conditions mutually agreed to by two
parties without outside interference or coercion. 

Neither Form nor the UAW exercised undue power.  How could they? 
They each agreed to this. 

>>But the point is that GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS NEEDED FOR WORKERS
>>TO BE ABLE TO HAVE UNIONS.
> 
>Again, nonsense. The historical records says otherwise. However, it is
>true that government intervention has been used to force unionization in
>some instances where the majority of the workers did not wish to be
>represented by a given union.
> 

Could you give one example, please?

>>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.
> 
>And a union can close down a company.

That's called a "strike"
And a company can close down a union.
That's called a "lockout"
Together, that's called a balance.

>privileges under the law than do the auto companies. It has a near-
>monopoly on automotive labor in this country, across all companies.
>It has managed thereby to achieve a premium on unskilled labor estimated
>at 40-60% over similar industries.

Hey, they must be doing something right!  And if everybody was so
dissatisfied, hows comes they, the workers, never petitioned for
a decertification election?  Heck, it only takes 30% to do this, 
not even a majority.

Hey, they must be doing something right!
 
>What? Fired from an auto company for being pro-Union? When was this?
>1912? The opposite is true today. You can't work for Ford without being in
>a union- a union whose monopoly is protected by the government.

No it isn't.  Again, all it takes is 30% to call for another vote
on union representation.
 
>The modern parallel is Clinton's plan for an "Industrial Policy" in which
>capital markets will be heavily taxed, effectively destroying them, and
>the proceeds will be used to attempt to re-create these markets through
>government planning. This is what Smith was talking about in the first
>quote- the interests of those who would profit by these manipulations, and
>the state's interference to benifit a few rather than the many who are
>benifitted by a free and open market for goods and labor.

He's right on this point, Ronda; Let's give him credit for this!

>Monopolies need two things to exist: A single producer, and high entry
>costs. You can have anti-monopolistic market pressures even when there is
>a single producer if the price to enter a market is low enough. In that
>instance the single producer must keep prices low enough to make the
>profit from entering a market below the costs associated with entry.
> 
>Effectively that means the only real monopolies in the world are those
>created by actual physical constraints- the DeBeers Diamond monopoly is
>often cited here- or by government constraints. Examples of the second are
>public utilities, cable TV franchises and a number of large labor unions.
> 

Again, there is a clearly defined legal avenue to get rid of a union,
it requires no action of the legislature.  By contract, it would take
a change in the law to get rid of a public utility or a cable TV
franchise.

>Unions are losing membership today in large numbers. The claim from the
>unions
>is that the government is destroying them, despite the very strong legal
>privileges that unions enjoy in this country, such as the union shop
>rules mentioned above. The real reason unions are shrinking is that the US
>job market has become increasingly skilled in the post-WWII era, and
>highly
>skilled people are far more job-mobile and able to contract individually
>for their services. As a systems analyst I do not need a union to protect
>my interests- there are many competing firms who would bid for my
>services.
>Nonetheless, because this is Detroit, I pay "agency fees" to the UAW to
>represent me!
> 

That's today. How about tomorrow?  How about if your boss gets fired
and another one takes his place, and just doesn't like you?  What
if you weren't so mobile, like close family ties?  What if you had a
disagreement with your boss - who holds the strength if you don't
have a union?  

I've got a suggestion: instead of just paying "agency fees" pay
regular union dues, become active in the union.  Change it the way
you think it ought to be run.  Improve it.  Run for office. Go to
union meetings.  Tell the union officers what you think they should
do, and why.  

Unions, unlike companies, are democratic organizations.  You CAN
make a difference.

>Unions will always be needed for those who having no specific job skills
>to
>barter, but as we move to a more skilled work force the main function of
>the
>labor unions will increasingly be one of obtaining protection for their
>members from the increasing competition from the new emerging industrial
>nations who are human-capital intensive.

One of the reasons that unions need to go out and ORGANIZE, which they
have been ignoring.  Moreover, this outreach to other workers needs
to extend beyond national borders.  

If a country wants to be able to trade with the United States, then
it ought to give unions the same recognition that the United States
does.

---------------------------
Bob Kastigar, member of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1220
urkastig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu