“Union Holds US Ports Hostage,” according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Russ Pohl. Hell, if he’s going to be so sensationalist about it, he should at least add some exclamation marks to the headline.
Interestingly, Pohl doesn’t play the trump card — the state’s looming presence in all labor negotiations — that right-”libertarians” are usually so eager to throw down on the table.
Maybe that’s because, per the piece, “[f]ederal mediators were called in to defuse the situation but ultimately admitted they themselves had little to do with the final outcome.” That final outcome, by the way, was that striking clerical workers returned to their jobs after successfully negotiating a contract with the operators of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Or maybe Pohl shied away from playing the “government power” card because it wasn’t the workers seeking state intervention, but rather the National Retail Federation urging US President Barack Obama to intervene and order an end the strike.
Some “hostage situation.” I wonder if that’s what Pohl would call it if the owner of one of those shipping containers, full of (for example) Christmas toys, declined to deliver said toys to a purchasing store without a signed contract in hand? Especially if the toy seller had been delivering toys for two years without such a contract, just relying on the store’s owners to pay him whatever they felt the toys were worth (the port workers reported for duty every day for two years sans contract before saying enough was enough)?
"Or maybe Pohl shied away from playing the 'government power' card because it wasn’t the workers seeking state intervention, but rather the National Retail Federation urging US President Barack Obama to intervene and order an end the strike."
Ah yes, big gubmint needs to get off the poor capitalist's back and sink its claws into some workers. Typical. Perhaps CEI will call for a repeat of the Ludlow massacre next time some workers get uppity. I think your C4SS comrade Kevin Carson needs to put this story into his "vulgar libertarianism" file. I would humbly suggest that he write a vulgar libertarianism book at some point. Surely there is enough material out there.
The fact that these guys even get away with calling themselves "libertarians"–in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary–is really starting to piss me off. CEI and their ilk are nothing but right-wing liberals with a fetish for the corporate executive class. They have absolutely no qualms about running to the state if it means they can shove a worker's face in the shit. The fact that they might step outside to smoke a joint after fucking over a worker does not mean they are libertarian in the least
Considering that the union's position was motivated by nativist protectionism, I hardly think these "workers" are worthy of praise or comparable to the martyrs of the Ludlow Massacre. I was disappointed to see C4SS attacking a straw man here. That's what seems truly vulgar
Jacob,
I agree that nativism/protectionism are ugly features of the currently prevailing American labor union movement.
That doesn't change the point of the post: Unions are market actors just like employers, and deciding not to sell something (in this instance, labor) without a contract isn't the equivalent of "taking hostages."
Due to the imbalance of power between employers and their workers, workers often feel compelled to settle for less or take measures that aren't especially radical. The system, as it stands currently, doesn't offer workers a lot of great options. If you don't understand this then you are living in a neo-liberal fantasy world. I'm for worker control, not begging for scraps from the boss man's table. But the average trade union isn't ready to take this step. If the approach of these workers turns you off, surely you will join me in advocating worker-management, right? RIght?
It is interesting to see what happens when C4SS posts an article that emphasizes the anti-capitalist (and not just the anti-state) aspect of the individualist anarchist philosophy they promote. It really brings the bourgeois liberal out of their "libertarian" critics. If you don't like it, Jacob, I'm sure the folks at Mises.org or Lew Rockwell.com would love to have you back.
I thumbed up both Jacob and Dave's comments. Let me explain.
Dave is correct in that, in the current system, workers don't have good options. Jacob is also right when he points out that these guys aren't exactly the Wobblies or the Ludlow martyrs. I don't think Jacob is a right-libertarian (or "libertarian) at al0, vulgar or otherwise. The fact he looks at the Ludlow types as heroes tells me that. I don't think the insults were called for. Dave is also correct when he points out what happens when they're louder in their anti-capitalism. That was one reason I brought that up in the comment section of the Olympics article all those months ago. It was to bring these contrasts to light.
Even then, I saw some genuine radicalism in the Palaver. Liberalism, like socialism and anarchism, is a broad label. I saw many examples of radical liberalism (what used to be known as radicalism, simply) in that discussion. Radical liberalism is liberalism taken as far as it can go; to a rejection of the state. It isn't anarchy (as it doesn't explicitly attack other hierarchies), or socialist at all (does not see a 'labor problem'). But I do consider it genuinely left-wing and radical in its own right.
I think of them as being potential fellow travelers, just as various strands of Left-Communism (Marxist) are to anarchists. Auberon Herbert always insisted he was not an anarchist. Not because he feared anarchists though. Based on what little I read, he often corresponded with Tucker and was on speaking terms with the Freedom Group in London (known for the anarchist newspaper Freedom and for Freedom Press). In fact, he spoke in defense of the right to publish "inflammatory" speech and pamphlets-no doubt having his anarchist friends in mind. He knew what anarchism consisted in, and was honest enough to not claim the label for himself. J.H. Levy used it as an insult, but Herbert knew better.
The reason for all these overlaps between liberalism, socialism, and anarchism is that they share a common parentage in Enlightenment ideas. While ultimately having a different set of goals, they share some a large number of common values. That liberalism decayed to little more than a defense of the status quo is not a cause for scorn, but for disappointment. Just my two cents.
This is what I don't get. Why do market anarchists/left libertarians feel so compelled to defend nativist, Gomperist unions? Just because someone carries a laminated card with a three letter acronym on it doesn't mean they deserve support. Sure, vulgar libertarians reactively defend business, but it's just as vulgar to reactively defend unions.
Today's unions aren't the groups that struggled for workers' rights at the turn of the century. They're greedy, small minded conglomerates every bit as morally reprehensible as bossist employers. As libertarians, we've got the luxury of speaking truth to power wherever it may concentrate. Unions don't need libertarian help to whitewash themselves. Stop apologizing for cleverly branded power structures that claim to help workers while only perpetuating historic inequities.
Jacob,
I'm not "defend[ing] nativist, Gomperist unions."
I'm attacking a particular set of opponents of unions (including, but not limited to, nativist, Gomperist unions) for hypocrisy.
There's a difference.