Dec12
Right To Work
on December 12, 2012 at 1:38 pmIs it unlibertarian?
Technically speaking, yes, but as he notes, it’s a more libertarian solution than the status quo under the NRLA. If we can get that repealed (won’t happen with this president or Congress) then right-to-work laws become unnecessary.
Unions are toothless in a libertarian world (as, ideally, everyone is), and right-to-work laws wouldn’t need to exist at all.
What does that mean? It means, if the union fails to negotiate a deal with an employer, the employer is free to replace the workers, just as the workers are free to go work elsewhere.
“The ideal role for the government in business-labor relations is to stay the hell out of it and let the parties work things out themselves.”
I’m not going to disagree with any of that, and because I completely agree that gub’ment(s) should stay out of our way. But perhaps this isn’t technically interference that is happening.
Originally there were no unions. And there were no laws regarding unions.
Then at some point the state of MI passed a law saying unions could charge NON-union members union dues, and the employers were required to collect the dues and send them to the union.
Now, the state has undone the law that says they can do this and the employers must send non-union money to the unions. Doesn’t this just reset the system to where it was originally?
.
.
.
Trent,
Right to Work usually means NO union involvement at all. It means each individual has to deal with the employer on his own. Or at least I’ve never worked in a right to work state where unions were involved with non-union employees.
Yep, I agree. But in our modern enlightened countries, we have to pass laws to undo situations that were created by other laws. The idiots pass a law saying certain people can beat other people over the head, and then feel the need to say certain people can’t be beaten over the head. Pure genius.