The recent failure of United Auto Workers’ attempt to unionize the Chattanooga Volkswagen plant has become political fodder for Tennessee Republicans. In a recent interview, US Senator Bob Corker claimed the UAW is looking at VW workers as “a dollar bill” to further its union agenda. When questioned about his role in halting worker organization at the plant, a delighted Corker told CNBC he’s not surprised by union backlash because “a hit dog hollers.”
Corker noted in the interview he had been “assured” that a rejection of unionization would reward labor by sending new work to the plant. Crafty jargon from another Big Government conservative. Not only was this statement denied by VW, but now, because there is no union, the private company very well may halt expansion in the south.
The Chattanooga confrontation boils down to nothing but politics. Tennessee is already a “Right to Work” state, so if workers decided to join the UAW no employee would have had to join the union. Non-union workers at the plant would have avoided union dues (but received the benefits negotiated on their behalf by organized labor). There was no threat to conservative “Right to Work” laws, but Tennessee Republicans still meddled in the affairs of a private institution — because they loathe organized labor.
This has big implications for labor organizing in Tennessee. I am a Tennessean and a card-carrying member of United Campus Workers – Communication Workers of America (UCW-CWA), Tennessee’s higher education union. Tennessee Republicans do not believe I have the right to free association or to negotiate the conditions of my labor, and they will use their political clout to ensure I can’t. Let’s examine just what this means.
I am not endorsing the UAW or even the UCW-CWA. Big union, just as big business and big government, has its issues. However, I am endorsing voluntary association.
If workers come together to negotiate contracts with their employers that is nothing but the libertarian principle of freedom of association. If the bargaining process yields a voluntary contract between management and labor then what we have is yet another example of free association. This is simply co-operation in the work place. It is big government laws that tip the scale in favor of one group over another that are the problem. In Tennessee, “Right to Work” laws benefit capital at the expense of labor.
Republicans, by flexing their big government muscle, seek restrictions on voluntary transactions within a private company. They work to crush the very principle of free association. Regardless of how workers want to organize it is none of their business.
In liberty, freedom of association and voluntary contracts are the rule. The libertarian is not concerned with the rights of government — conservative or liberal, federal or state. The libertarian is concerned with individual rights — including the right to organize. Government laws restrict competition in the market and they restrict democracy on the shop floor. Without big government, labor would be liberated — free to smash government imposed privilege. Without big government, and moving beyond bossism, unions would once again dedicate their efforts to advancing the working class. It is government’s failure to respect voluntary contract, to leave the market alone, that is the real story of Chattanooga.
The solution is to smash the structures of big government that privilege one class over another in the first place. It’s not about politics or your next election, folks, it’s about free association.
Citations to this article:
- Grant Mincy, Voluntary Association Not Allowed in the Volunteer State, Before It’s News, 02/27/14
So unions never riot, block entrance-ways or attack scabs?
"I am not endorsing the UAW or even the UCW-CWA. Big union, just as big business and big government, has its issues. However, I am endorsing voluntary association."
Has anyone looked at the effect of "right to work" laws on how unions behave, such as the kind of behaviour that Hidden Author described? I agree with Mr. Mincy that the right of free association clearly includes the right to organize as a union if people so desire, but also the right not to participate in one. Have "right to work" laws reduced the violent tendencies of unions in the states where they have been enacted?
I see your point – but why does rhetoric always focus on unions? How have "right to Work" laws empowered management. Why not smash the structures of big government that privilege one class over another in the first place? Its the state, not human beings, that is the problem.
This is all old school. Big production is moving off shore to places where you can buy cheap labor from people so desperate for rice they'll put up with horrible working conditions—South East Asia. The effect of right to work laws on people who work for smaller firms and tech oriented companies in the U.S. is that managers and owner can fire you on the spot, with no reason whatsoever, without recourse. Also, this kind of work climate usually goes hand-in-hand with must-sign non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements, which can lock you out of a job in your industry after you've been fired. Sure they might not hold up in court, but what fired dude has the resources to fight a company with an array of attack dog lawyers? Given that many companies now require these types contracts as conditions for employment, you're pretty much screwed as an individual job seeker. You either agree to the standard work conditions or you don't get the job anywhere. So much for "right to work." And who is it that enforces this oppressive work environment? Big government, as you say, with big business collusion. But good luck taking away these privileges for businesses to free up people to voluntarily associate.
So bosses never hired thugs to brutalize & murder striking workers, never abuse workers while workers had been still employed, never denied workers the benefits already promised in the contracts, never cried for help from governments to repressed wildcat strikes & direct actions by workers' unions & boycotts by consumers' unions? Workers & their unions are required to be angels, but never bosses.
Racists' rights can refuse to Black workers & not to pay Black & White workers because those racists owned the workplace & tools, so it's unlibertarian to force racists to hire Blacks & pay equally, yet pro-union bosses are denied the rights to use their property: they must not request candidates to join any union in order to get hired. O yea, "right to work" also gave scabs free rides: they are exempt from paying union dues, yet whenever union successfully forced bosses to treat unionized workers better, scabs got those benefits as well.
What about blocking entrance & direct action? Heck! Bosses relied on past state-robberies & subsidies to build the workplace & procure the tools, the workers just unionized to exercise their property rights on what was theirs.
"but also the right not to participate in one." Then non-unionized scabs should NOT be entitled to benefits & concessions which unionized workers had successfully got from bosses. If scabs were so masochistic as uncritically accept treatments, however bad, by bosses.
"Have 'right to work' laws reduced the violent tendencies of unions in the states where they have been enacted?" What about the same "violent tendencies" by governmental & private thugs brutalizing strikers on bosses' behalf? Wildcat strikes, secondary strikes, sympathy strikes are also actions by voluntary associations, why are they illegal? I think I'd heard that the state is pro-union?
I didn't make a point. My questions were not rhetorical, I really do want to know what has been the effect of "right to work" legislation on the behaviour of unions.
The effect of Right to Work laws has been the destruction of unions and a decrease in employee compensation.
supposin' it has? How is prohibiting property owners who do prefer closed shops from coming to such an agreement justifiable?
If headstrong workers decide to band together, it's unlibertarian for those headstrong workers to force their masochistic colleagues to unionize. This is what I agree with vulgar "libertarians." If scabs were so masochistic, let them suffer that voluntarily.
But I maintain it is ALSO unlibertarian for sadistic bosses to use the state to prohibit such voluntary combination by defiant workers; unless such combinations should be STATE-SANCTIONED in "closed shops" as long as the bosses' interests aren't too much hurt by truly many OTHER voluntary actions THAN state-sanctioned actions. Why vulgar "libertarians" tolerate such pro-business statism?
And lastly, right-to-work laws clearly violate the property rights of closed-shops' bosses by allowing scabs to use the property of closed shops bosses' without their consent. Why TeddM defend such laws which are statist & "anti-business," according to his logically fallacious argument from adverse or advantageous consequence, right to work laws reduce unions' violence (but bosses violence should & shall always be tolerated).
Closed-shops' bosses collude with COMPROMISING state-officials to make sure that the state-sanctioned-unionsonly negotiate according to conditions not too harmful for closed-shops' bosses. In contrast, "open-shops'" bosses only selectively apply libertarians principle of competition to use private violence to repress unions & use scabs as competitors against some non-state-sanctioned unions (not every non-state-sanctioned union forces scabs to join). Yet "open shops' bosses stupidly think that all unions, state-sanctioned or non-state-sanctioned, hurt capitalism, so they collude with TYRANNICAL state-officials force statist "right to work" laws down the throat of closed-shops' bosses. Not to mention that open-shopped bosses could be downright statist when they whined for state-violence against unions. In short, open shops' bosses stupidly think that state-sanctioned unions are NOT statist enough.
Either way, capitalism is inherently statist, compromisingly or tyrannically.