ruckman101 wrote:How would I want the government to "intervene" you ask?
I ask that directly at your Union concerns. What laws to intervene in the Union/employer/employee relations? What laws are needed to help or hinder any of those parties.
Not whether Unions are needed, good or not. Not whether what they helped to get passed is good or not, but what laws do we need for there to be Unions, or for them to exist? What more than what a Libertarian form of gov would provide for the existence of Unions.
I am saying Unions can still be in a limited Libertarian form of gov. There is no laws to prevent it, and there wouldn't be any laws to help either side. What laws do you think the government needs for Unions to exist, or perhaps in order for them to be of use? What laws do you think we need to help unions to succeed?
ruckman101 wrote:
Why in all the ways the government has, in response to pressure from the citizens for sane and safe working conditions, a wage that allows you to live, not slide into debt to your employer, all things employers weren't doing on their own. It took unions to get the job done. While labor is technically another resource, to drive down those costs in the name of profits at the expense of your employees is criminal. Look at WalMart, they bank on government subsidies to slash their labor costs. While the abuses used to be 80 hour work weeks, now it's the 20 hour work week.
All those government "interventions" were reluctantly taken at the behest of the citizens. Why anyone would think employers would be any more honorable now without those "interventions" is beyond me. Why support what has already failed?
neal
None of those are needed, unless people feel they are slaves, owned or powerless. We need none of them.
If the working conditions aren't safe, don' work there.
It is not criminal to drive down cost at the expense of of employees if they are not forced to be there. If we had a free society they wouldn't have to work there.
Maybe employers wouldn't be more honorable, if they aren't honorable enough for you, then stand up and leave. Freedom, if want it, exercise it, if you don't, then I guess you could stay.
I wouldn't suggest supporting something that has failed.
That is why I don't support control of people in the hands of the wealthy, becuase it seems that always fails for the masses. The wealthy are the ones in power. Limit there power, why give them more? So they can make the way people consumed milk for 1700 years illegal?
Edited to add,
People could be in a Union and still all choose to not work to bring about some change by the Employer. Whether that employer meets there demands or not would be up to the employer. If he chose to hire all new people, then they'd have to live with whatever the other people didn't like, or they could leave to.
Edited a 2nd time.
I thought I had addressed how Union could be in LP gov with no laws favoring either party, just protecting Individual Rights.
Substitute some bad working conditions for the word pay in the example of a strike.
The union argument can be one of the harder ones.
Using my usual Libertarian approach to dissect the issue.
Basing things on property rights, property as things owned including oneself.
A person who owns a company, owns it, it is their property.
They offer job at set wage. A person can choose it, or not.
The people who have chosen to work there decide to form a union, they can do that.
They can decide that together as a whole they can strike, not go to work.
The owner of the company can then decide to work with them, not have any work
going on, or hire new people....
In other words, if property rights alone are observed, and no government intervention or laws
to give either side an advantage or disadvantage, I see no problem. I think this is best.
There would be no issue. It seem too simple to me. People, property, free choice.
Choice to work somewhere, form or join a union if you want, work or don't work, owner makes
choice, perhaps he will realize he can't find people better and should work with them, which would also mean they have leg to stand on, or maybe he will find there our thousands standing at the door, who can do this job and are willing to for the same pay, which would sort of mean the people striking don't have a leg to stand on. Maybe he thinks he can do without these people and is wrong, his business will suffer, maybe he will learn, if not, his loss, his life, his choice, his property
.