creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
26 Nov 2014
Thanks, Property Rights!

This Thanksgiving, I give thanks for something our forebears gave us: property rights. People associate … Read More.

19 Nov 2014
Control Freaks

Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves "public servants." But whether student council president,… Read More.

12 Nov 2014
Democracy Delusions

When the Berlin Wall came down 25 years ago this week, people in the Soviet Bloc gained something even more … Read More.

Strangulation by Union

Comment

The Chicago teachers strike is over, but the public didn't win. Schools will still transfer bad teachers to other schools because it's nearly impossible to fire them. When bad teachers go from school to school, principals call it "the dance of the lemons." It would be funny if those teachers didn't slowly wreck children's lives.

The basic issue is: Who decides how to manage a workplace? Unions say it's good that they protect American workers from arbitrary dismissal and make sure everyone is treated equally.

But it's not good.

Rules that "protect" government workers from arbitrary dismissal and require everyone be treated equally are bad for taxpayers and "customers" — and even union workers themselves.

But this is not intuitive. Union workers certainly have no clue about it.

At a union rally, I asked union workers if it bothered them that slackers are paid as much as good workers. The activists actually said, "There is no slacker," and that union rules mean less productive colleagues are helped, "brought up to speed."

C'mon, I asked, aren't there some workers who are just lazy, who drag the enterprise down?

"No!" they told me.

The union activists were also quick to say that unions built the middle class, that without unions, greedy bosses would lead a "race to the bottom" and pay workers next to nothing. "There would be no weekend, or eight-hour day!" they told me. "All that came from unions!"

Nonsense.

Workers' lives improved in America because of free enterprise, not because of union rules. Union contracts helped workers for a while, but then they hurt — even union workers — because the rigid rules prevent flexibility in response to new market conditions. They slow growth. And growth — increasing productivity, which leads to higher wages and new opportunities — is what is best for workers.

In 1914, Henry Ford doubled his employees' wages to $5 a day and cut their workday to eight hours. He then hired more people. He didn't do this out of benevolence. As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations," "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." It was in Ford's interest to increase his company's profits, and to do that he needed to attract the best workers he could find.

When companies compete for workers, they get higher wages and better working conditions. Ford shortened the workday to better compete. Then GM and Chrysler matched Ford's deal to keep up. Workers won.

All without a union. It wasn't until 30 years later that the UAW appeared and unionized the workers. Union membership gave them good benefits for a while, but then growth slowed and stopped. That sure didn't help workers. Consider what happened at GM. Over the past 20 years, much-less-unionized Toyota created 15,000 jobs — in America, not in Japan. Over that same period, GM lost 400,000 American jobs. One reason GM shrank was union rules. How's that good for workers?

Of course workers have a right to unionize — it's part of freedom of association. But to be effective, that right needs a free-market environment. That means no compulsory membership — free association, not forced association. Second, enterprise must be truly free and competitive, which means no privilege or favoritism from government — no bailouts and crony capitalism.

When enterprise is competitive, workers acquire more bargaining power because multiple employers bid for their services. Also, self-employment is a real option because no government barriers to entry prevent it (like licensing, zoning or complicated taxes and rules). As the great economics writer Henry Hazlitt pointed out, free unions can play a constructive role when they have to attract members by offering valuable services, such as information on the latest market conditions. But the market must be free in all respects.

Today, workers should know the downside of unionizing. It's not just the cost of their union dues. It's the opportunities lost in union shops because the rules limit entrepreneurs' ability to change, adapt and grow. It's that freedom — free enterprise — that gives America and workers the power to prosper.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
While I agree that as a concept workers should be free to decide for themselves if they want to join a union, I don't think it is the responsibility of the government to save corporations from hurting themselves by signing stupid forced union contracts. Public sector unions are different but in a free market it would be up to the corporations themselves and their employees if they want to establish a policy of only hiring unionized labor. Such an agreement would be stupid for the company to make but it should be their decision. If GM foolishly decides to agree with its employees to allow them not only to unionize but to also require all employees to join the union then GM should have to suffer for that poor decision.
I am against the concept of Right to Work but not because I disagree with the idea or like unions but because in the free market it is not the government's job to save companies from themselves. That being said, I recognize that many labor unions have also been able to get laws passed that require unionization in some industries and they usually have a lot of legal privileges. But once again, those are all failures of government policy not the free market.
I have no interest in making sure anyone is unionized but I also don't accept the premise that the government has the right to reject people's private mutual contracts. I had a job once with mandatory unionization and I would have preferred not to join. But I did not have the right to tell the company that they had to disregard their previously existing contract because I did not want to join a union. Furthermore, it was my choice to apply there for a job in the first place. No one was forcing me. Now if that company suffers because it agreed to a stupid mandatory unionization policy then that is their problem. They have no one to blame but themselves if they agree to such a policy. I was in no way benefited by the union but again, no one forced me to apply there. Incidentally, I left that job pretty quickly have not been in a union since. Again, I have no love for unions but I just don't believe in government saving companies from bad policy.
While I see some economic wisdom in the concept of Right to Work, I would say the real answer is to get the government out of any form of union privilege and allow unionized companies to fail if they can't stay afloat. That is probably a bigger problem. Now when it comes to public sector unions, they have absolutely no business existing. They do not bargain with they people who pay their salaries and they cannot fail in a free market if they screw up the system.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Zack
Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:26 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 1 Dec 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 29 Nov 2014
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 28 Nov 2014

23 Dec 2009 Dump the Audience?

27 Aug 2008 Energy Independence II

4 Mar 2009 Obama the Efficient Goes to Washington