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 01:36:37 GMT

>
>>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.

Not explicitly, but he did say that government should not control the
marketplace.  Labor is a commodity in the marketplace, just as land
and capital.  I'm extending his idea.  Remember: Adam Smith was
prior to the collectivism of workers into unions.  He, too, made
the assumption that the individual stood alone.  A bad assumption.

>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
>
>  "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.

If you define "the public" as a collection of individuals not related,
this makes sense.  But the individuals aren't required to remain
isolated.  All workers have the opportunity to unite.

>>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.
>

That's the usual way of looking at it.  I think there's another way,
Ronda.

There is no intrinsic reason why workers cannot form unions.  It isn't
in the Constitution, the Ten Commandments, or the natural law.

There is something intrinsically wrong with conspiring to do harm. 
Prior to the Wagner Act, if a group got together to plan a bank
robbery, this was the crime of conspiracy.  If a group got together
to plan an action to better their working conditions, this was
also the crime of conspiracy.  

So we have two possible crimes described.  What the Wagner Act did
was _reduce_ the number of crimes (in this example) from two to one.
It's still a crime of conspiracy to plan an action to rob a bank.
It is no longer a crime to plan an action (ie, a lawful action)
to improve working conditions.

You shouldn't say "The Wagner Act gave people the right to form
unions."  Rather, you should say "The Wagner Act restored a 
right that always existed, but this right wasn't recognized do to a
defective, restrictive, law."

>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.
>

There is more to being a union member than paying dues.  That's a
large part of the problem today - to many people are just paying
dues, but not supporting the idea of unionism.  Paying dues is
easy and cheap.  It's following up on the ideal that's hard.

Who cares who writes the check?  If Ford was simply transferring 
money - but did not control the union is any way, shape, or form
I would say you had a good deal!  If Ford gives you the money
(subjecting it to tax) and then you turn around and write a check
to the union - what have you gained?

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

No, government needs to restrain from any action that regulates union
activities.  The workers will form unions, because it is in their 
own best interests to do so.  

Of course, by "union activities" I mean legal activities.  No 
violence, no sabotage, stuff like that.

>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.

Oh they can?  Not if all the union workers joined together 
they couldn't.  I mean ALL union workers.  Nobody would work
for them, and nobody would buy their products. 

They ARE equal, if, and only if, individuals act together.

>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.

Of course.  Notice you used the word "interfere" twice.  (The 
government has to INTERFERE to ensue that the employer doesn't
INTERFERE...) Nobody should be allowed to "interfere" with someone 
else's freedom.  
 
>Do you know what Taft-Hartley does actually that makes being in a union
>harder?

My point exactly.

>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.

Again, Adam Smith never realized the potential that workers had when
they united.  Even he seemed to think there was something unnatural
about collective action, or by not expressing the idea he demonstrates
that he never thought of the idea!

However, if they do - and the government ensures that either side
can take any (legal, non-violent) actions it wants - then the 
balance will be maintained.

I think we're on the same side, Ronda.  I'm just taking a very
different perspective.
-----------
Bob Kastigar, member of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1220
urkastig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.amateur-comp:73 comp.misc:3893