My TGIF column this week at The Future of Freedom Foundation, “Right-To-Work Laws and the Modern Classical-Liberal Tradition,” points out that an earlier generation of 20th-century libertarian economists opposed right-to-work laws. These include Milton Friedman and Percy L. Greaves Jr., a close associate of both Ludwig von Mises and Leonard E. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education.
Friedman compared RTW to antidiscrimination laws, regarding them both as unjustified interference with the rights of employers to hire whomever they choose. Greaves saw RTW as inconsistent with markets and freedom because it forbids employers and unions from reaching a particular kind of voluntary agreement, namely, one that requires workers to compensate a union for representational services, as a condition of employment. Greaves correctly argued that RTW was only an issue because of earlier government intervention in the form of the Wagner Act, which requires an employer to deal with a union, and all workers to financially support it, if a majority of workers designate it as their bargaining agent. Greaves said that the free-market response to the compulsion in Wagner is repeal of Wagner, not further government intervention through an outlawing of employer-union exclusive contracts.
The irony is that Wagner plus the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments constitute a vast pro-business program to tame the labor movement. Instead of (threats of) sudden wildcat strikes, sympathy boycotts, and secondary strikes, the federal labor-law regime substituted cooling-off periods, compulsory arbitration, and many other restrictions. “Responsible” labor leaders were brought to the table as junior partners in the corporate state and were deputized to police their members’ compliance with the negotiated contracts. No wonder the Wobblies hated Wagner-Taft-Hartley. RTW was a way to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I seriously doubt that big employers would want to get rid of Wagner-Taft-Hartley if they had the chance.
Read the article here.
Very interesting, Sheldon. I am glad to see that you and others friendly to classical (rightist) liberals are challenging them to remain true to their own principles. If they pay attention, these liberals might become real libertarians some day!
As a libertarian socialist, I have significant problems with Friedman. For instance, his assertion that wage workers are "protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work" is easily refuted by the experiences of those of us who have actually worked as wage earners. Still, I am glad that he had the integrity to see through these stupid laws. "Right to work laws" are indeed right to free load laws, as many others have pointed out. If the people supporting these laws were honest, they would refer to them as "Right to be a Docile Wage Slave Laws."
Oops, I forgot to add that the Friedman quote is found in "Capitalism and Freedom," p. 14-15.
Libertarians on UNIONS–the summary combats extreme 'libertarian' conservatives claiming libertarianism=right to work, anti-unionism, anticollective bargaining, etc. and shows the correct fight is for automatic choice of union agencies…contact your legislator! http://www.libertarianinternational.org/apps/blog… and that Unions are working with Libs in many areas…MG wrote the original Lib platform and I totally agree we have to stop debating past wrongs on other's terms and start advancing Libertarian improvements.
To give Friedman his due, he was opposed to corporatism and favor to business.
That's true. If a classical liberal is principled then I will probably agree with him or her 60% of the time. Of course that's not scientific, it's just my way of saying that they are almost there. I am more inclined to agree with a person like this than any conservative and most Left-liberals. If they would simply pay more attention to the hierarchical system that controls most us 40+ hours a week (wage work), I think more of them would become consistent libertarians.
Sheldon,
Hey, just wondering if you, Kevin or anyone else saw this article from Shikka Dalmia at Reason.com: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/right-to-work-l…
Dalmia argues that it is consistent with libertarianism to support "Right to Work" laws (If she used the labels right-wing liberalism or classical liberalism, then she might be right), and argues against the position taken by writers on C4SS. Plenty of classical liberal fantasy regarding the nature of wage work in this piece too. Here's a sample:
"One reason is that even in a quasi-free market such as ours there is enough competition for labor that employers do not maximize their profits by low-balling their employees or having them work insane hours in Steinbeckian conditions. In fact, individualized representation allows employers to customize remuneration packages based on individual merit—which redounds to everyone’s benefit because it gives all workers an incentive to boost productivity and income. One-size-fits-all contracts with uniform raises and benefits for all conceivably depress the income of excellent workers as much as they raise it for mediocre workers. In any case, if freedom to negotiate individual contracts works for salaried workers, there is no reason to believe that, in principle, it wouldn’t work for wage workers."
Since she mentioned you and Kevin Carson specifically, I wondered if either of you are going to respond?