More on unions

The Instapundit links to an anti-union post by Evan Coyne Maloney of Brain Terminal on unions (not fair that I never get linked to).

Evan writes, "I do not understand why unions aren't considered illegal cartels." People don't seem to understand that, just the opposite, unions are favored under the laws. Without federal pro-union laws making unions possible (dating back to FDR and the New Dea), unions would be powerless.

Unions are good for their members. The guys driving the NYC buses are getting far better wages and benefits than they otherwise would. I'm surprised that more workers don't unionize considering how easy the laws make it for unions to form. Unions are like a huge gift from the 1930s that today's low wage workers don't even bother to take advantage of.

Evan also writes:

It's too bad that neither Mayor Bloomberg nor Governor Pataki have the power or the backbone to do what President Reagan did when PATCO--the (former) air traffic controllers union--went on strike. If the transit workers don't want to show up and drive the trains, then the MTA should be free to hire people who do.

I have to agree that these guys have no backbone. The voters would enthusiastically endorse any get tough actions. Everyone in NYC, even super-left wing types, are pissed at the transit workers.

Comments

[Noumenon]

No time to try to make a convincing case here (and how much convincing goes on between right and left here) but just to make you aware of the opposite perspective,

Unions' highwater mark came under FDR and lasted until Taft-Hartley in 1945. Since then corporations have learned to co-opt or outright ignore the NRLB, and to use various consultant-approved tactics to win union elections and such. For example the only penalty for firing someone over union agitation is reinstating back pay -- net back pay minus what they earned if they got another job. Is it worth paying that $10,000 to not have a union? Many companies say yes.

Obviously, unions have it good when it comes to organizing governments, but the text of the laws has little to do with the organized and unanimous opposition they face among the corporations that dominate the political process. Here's a little Flash animation describing how difficult corporations have made starting a union via the NLRB election process. Or, just look at Wal-Mart.

I realize all this rests on probably 25 premises you don't agree with, but at least you should be aware that claiming unions are favored under the laws will make many people's jaws drop. Here's a little Flash animation

[Noumenon]

Doh, that last sentence was left over from editing too fast.

[Michael A. Clem]

But what HS says is true, just not entirely true. Yes, the law gives unions certain political privileges that they wouldn't have otherwise, but there's *lots* of laws, including laws that give corporations various and sundry privileges, as well. When you turn to the coercion of politics to give people privileges, you shouldn't be surprised that other groups will do the same. Right-to-Work laws throws a monkeywrench into union politics, but it doesn't really fix the problem.
The only real solution is to get the government out of the business of passing out political privileges and focus on rights-protection.