Comments on: HRW on the meatpacking industry

By: x

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:09:14 +0000

oh, and, regarding this: “Once again I observe how common it is for CT commenters to implicitly assume that their audience accepts egalitarian premises.” I don’t even know what those definitions are supposed to mean in the abstract, seems everyone redefines them at their own will anyway, a bit like “freedom” and “democracy” – but in practice, how about, assuming that a series of existing legal principles should be accepted, respected and applied by all citizens of all countries who formally signed up to them? Is that unreasonable? Call yourself libertarian all you like, it doesn’t give you a special license to pretend those laws are not there or to redefine the very basis of what makes a right a right.

By: x

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:01:45 +0000

nicholas weininger – What we mostly do think is that if you are a member of association A, and other people choose not to associate or make contracts with you because of your membership in A, this is not a violation of your right to be in A. Sorry, that’s just pure sophistry. In other words, bullshit. What you are describing is one way of effectively voiding that right. Let’s translate the argument on to another level where it might be clearer. Take the case of Mr X. He practises no religion. One day he decides to convert to Judaism. (Let’s assume that’s easy, for the sake of argument). If, after he’s become a Jew, people he works with stop associating with him, and more, his employers sack him, purely because of his religious membership, what are they doing if not voiding his human right to practice whatever religion he wants? A human right sanctioned by law. He would sue and it’d be an obvious case of discrimination. No one would dare defend the position of the employers, because it’s obviously wrong. Of course religion is not the same as trade unions, so the parallel is loose, but the point is a legal right to do something is not just the right to do it, in and of itself, regardless of what happens if you do it. Otherwise, everything that can technically be done becomes a right. If I steal money from you, I go to prison. Stealing is not a right, not just because it’s wrong and identified as a crime, but because that means I have to pay consequences for committing that crime. If I join a union, and my employer sacks me because of that, and other employers won’t even take me to work for them because of that, then they just are taking away that right to join unions, because they’re making me pay for it, they’re voiding the purpose of unions in the first place. What would unions be for, if the right to join them and not have that be held against you as if it was some kind of crime is not respected by employers? Just a social club? I don’t see how on earth that kind of discrimination against what is, I remind you again, a human right, can be justified. The declaration of human rights doesn’t simply list a series of things that people can do. The purpose of defining those rights is to protect them against discrimination.

By: x

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:41:39 +0000

Calling into question the last few centuries of human civilization isn’t wignuttery anymore unkle kvetch – agh, I know, you’re right, but it doesn’t stop shocking me, the level to which people go to justify that kind of position. I can’t help it. The more I see it, the more I can’t believe it. Something doesn’t become any less crazy just because it becomes more widespread and acceptable. Children at a private school in North Carolina were being taught, in 2004, that slavery as practiced in the American South was “a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.” Hmm, lovely. Hadn’t heard of that. Reminds me of a quote I came across recently in a charming account of the Republican Convention: bq. ‘People are always shouting that they want to create a better future,’ Milan Kundera once wrote. ‘It’s not true. The future is an apathetic void of no interest to anyone. The past is full of life, eager to irritate us, provoke and insult us, tempt us to destroy or repaint it. The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past.’

By: Lorenzo

Lorenzo — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:14:39 +0000

“This is, in a sense, off-topic, but it’s a request for some blogger to write more about labor. I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other. Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?” Simple, in a world where perfect competition isn’t actually occuring on the ground, so instead oligopoly and monopsony rule the day, there is necessarily implied market power, including market power in labour markets, thus unions serve as a countervailing force to the market power of oligopolistic corporations.

By: drapeto

drapeto — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:45:52 +0000

good blog by someone who works for a union and writes frequently on labor issues

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:23:01 +0000

…India, for instance, recently posted a huge gain in average wages due to increasing competition for labor… You take India – arbitrary chosen geographical location – but most of the new jobs there have nothing to do with geographical location of the workforce. Why don’t you calculate what has happened to average wages of the actual jobs that moved to India? That would be a better, much more meaningful statistic. That’s just too silly for words. All I am saying is that for you having job is a necessity while for Bill Gates having you (or anyone) working for him is not. This gives Gates a leverage, power to coerce you into selling your labor for less than it’s worth. Why is it silly? It seems quite obvious.

By: Silent E

Silent E — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:04 +0000

NW: “dubious”? Hardly. Demand drives up prices. When demand for labor is high, the price of labor rises. Unemployment is a measurement of the demand for labor, relative to supply, because official figures include only those seeking work. If unemployment drops, labor is more scarce. That scarcity raises the cost of labor, and hence prices throughout the economy: inflation. Because the Fed fights inflation, it must ensure that demand for labor does not get too high. Thus, every time the unemployment figures come out, the markets look closely for any signs that the economy is getting “too hot” because too many people are getting hired. If unemployment gets too low, the Fed raises interest rates to throw people out of work. One in 10 working-age Americans does not work today. One in 20 working-age Americans wants to work today, and cannot. So we require a large reserve of un- or under-utilized labor for our economy to function: tens of millions of Americans who want and need work, but who are told by their government that they must sacrifice their livelihoods, lives, or dignity for the benefit of land and capital. Where is the equivalent hobbling of land? Where is the sacrifice demanded of capital? For labor to negotiate with capital, it must organize. Closed shops: this cannot be left to employer, because no employer (or at best a trivial number) will ever allow union organization, much less closed shops, if they have the choice to refuse.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:25:06 +0000

abb1: claiming that labor competition exists only in modern developed countries and only because of the safety net is ridiculous. India, for instance, recently posted a huge gain in average wages due to increasing competition for labor—and India is not noted for the strength of its safety net. And are you seriously claiming that, because Bill Gates needs a job less than I do, if Bill Gates offers me a software job at MS it’s in essence the same as “shooting me between the eyes and taking my stuff”? That’s just too silly for words.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:10:29 +0000

Nicholas, true, there is some level of competition in modern industrial welfare states, mostly because of the safety net they provide. In most third world countries it’s much more obvious – you take a 17c/hour 16 hours/day 7 days/week job or you starve. It’s exactly as blatant as shooting you between the eyes and taking your stuff, only what they take is your labor. It’s a bit less obvious in industrial/post-industrial welfare states, but the essence is the same. When Bill Gates signs a contract with Larry Ellison – that is a free contract, there is no coercion here; but when you sign an employment contract with Bill Gates – he’s taking advantage of you, because you need a job to survive and he’ll survive just fine without your labor.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:05:16 +0000

The politics of most bloggers, and most liberals is pretty mediocre. The ones who think of themselves as intellectuals argue mostly from the standpoint of some form of technocratic faith. That there might be a conflict inherent in their position never occurs to them. In a technocratic world/philosophy all contradictions are either resolvable or ignored. —- On another note: “…my intuition is that this is indefensible from a Libertarian point of view, and this is not a small part of why I hold even the saner forms of Libertarianism to be contemptible.” Yes, and yes.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:36:55 +0000

Mrs. T: I don’t object to OPEC. :-) Actually I really do mean this, in the sense that OPEC is such an ineffective cartel that it’s hardly worth doing anything about. silent e: your dubious economic theory aside, why would you assume libertarians are any friends of the Fed, or think closed shops should be prohibited (as opposed to not being required)? abb1: that’s a hypothetical bearing no relation to reality. For one thing, even if all businesses in town are monopolized—a rare phenomenon indeed if the town is of any size—there exist many towns in the world, and you can move. Indeed many very poor people have managed to move long distances in successful pursuit of employment opportunities; were it not so, America would have a very different population. In the real world, almost all places at almost all times offer some level of competition for laborers. Often not as much as one would like—certainly not enough to make for equality of negotiating power, whatever that means—but enough to dispel the silly comparison to signing a contract at gunpoint. And when there really is little competition, it’s usually a result of government intervention on behalf of favored businesses, something no libertarian supports.

By: HP

HP — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:26:13 +0000

I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other. Why do I always get the impression that people become libertarians first, and then figure out what to believe later?

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:25:30 +0000

Yes, bargaining power, which operates very similar to physical power. If I put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract – that’s coercion. If I and my friends own all businesses in town and you have a choice to sign an employment contract with me or starve – that’s coercion too. Natural response to coercion is violence, communist or anarchist-style violence in this case. We don’t want that.

By: Silent E

Silent E — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:01:57 +0000

Why unions? Because it’s the only way to equalize the bargaining power between employers and workers. The economy requires surplus labor to function effectively – unemployment. When unemployment gets too low, inflation picks up and the Fed raises rates to slow growth – i.e. to get people fired. So employers are always in a position where there are fewer jobs than people who want them – and the result is that employers have a persistent negotiating advantage over workers. The answer is for workers to unionize – it’s the only way to level the playing field. Moreover, unions must care about the survival of companies; companies (and, more importantly, their executives) don’t care about the survival of workers or the adequacy of wages. As to why should libertarians allow a closed shop? Preventing free-ridership – the same reason taxes are compulsory and the government enforces your property rights.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:00:13 +0000

if for example a firm decides to join some cartel arrangement and I object to that, surely I may rightfully decide to stop buying the firm’s products, and my decision in no way impinges upon its freedom. So have you stopped buying petrochemicals, or do you simply not object to OPEC?