"Ron Paul Would Allow ‘Open Season’ on Union Organizers"

[Traitorfish]

From In These Times

Ron Paul Would Allow ‘Open Season’ on Union Organizers
By Mike Elk

Ron Paul’s showing yesterday in the Iowa Caucus—he came in third with 21 percent of votes, behind Mitt Romney's and Rick Santorum's 24.6 percent showings—wasn't the victory his passionate supporters wanted, but it makes him a force to be reckoned with throughout the rest of the Republican primary season. Paul, a longtime congressman from Texas, drew his support from an unusual combination of libertarians, conservatives and even a few progressives who supported his firm stances against the wars, opposition to the Wall Street bailout and strong support for civil liberties.

But what would his civil liberty stances mean for American's workers? It appears Paul would actually like to take away a key protection Americans currently enjoy at work. He supports ending a provision of the National Labor Relations Act that makes it illegal for employers to fire workers based on their support of unions.

...

While Paul claims he is for individual liberty, his support for the Truth in Employment Act shows that when its comes to the workplace, an employer's liberty trumps that of a worker.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12481/ron_paul_would_allow_open_season_on_union_organizers/

Thoughts on this? Do supporters and sympathisers with Paul agree that a libertarian should oppose legal defences for labour unions?

 

[Save_Ferris]

In These Times is my favorite comedy magazine. How they nail Fox for everything yet are equally biased makes them a shame to all journalism.

 

[Masada]

I thought he supported shooting them, his newsletter lied

 

[BasketCase]

I can render firsthand testimony that unions are not dedicated to the well-being of the Worker; they're dedicated to the well-being of the unions. I know this because I lost my first job as a direct result of a strike against General Motors. And I didn't even work at General Motors; I worked at a software company twice removed from General Motors. (i.e. I worked for a company that was working for a company that was contracting with GM)

Dear Unions: thanks a frigging heap, you idiots. So yeah, this one's personal. Go Ronnie.

 

[amadeus]

Thoughts on this? Do supporters and sympathisers with Paul agree that a libertarian should oppose legal defences for labour unions?

Absolutely. Conversely, if an employer wanted to have their business be entirely unionized, a (good) libertarian would not support interfering in the private affairs of people on behalf of non-union agitators.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can render firsthand testimony that unions are not dedicated to the well-being of the Worker; they're dedicated to the well-being of the unions. I know this because I lost my first job as a direct result of a strike against General Motors. And I didn't even work at General Motors; I worked at a software company twice removed from General Motors. (i.e. I worked for a company that was working for a company that was contracting with GM)

Dear Unions: thanks a frigging heap, you idiots. So yeah, this one's personal. Go Ronnie.

I can't help but think that you're missing the point rather entirely. The question isn't about the unions (which I'm also pretty sceptical of, although for rather different reasons than yourself), but about the relationship between employers and employees. Should employers be permitted to persecute union organisers, or shouldn't they?

 

[Crezth]

I can render firsthand testimony that unions are not dedicated to the well-being of the Worker; they're dedicated to the well-being of the unions. I know this because I lost my first job as a direct result of a strike against General Motors. And I didn't even work at General Motors; I worked at a software company twice removed from General Motors. (i.e. I worked for a company that was working for a company that was contracting with GM)

Dear Unions: thanks a frigging heap, you idiots. So yeah, this one's personal. Go Ronnie.

Anecdotal evidence is as good a reason as I can think of for insanely regressive policies.

Unions are a true threat since one in every twenty Americans is a unionist, i.e. enemy of freedom. Eliminate unions and you will have MAX freedom.

 

[Quackers]

I think Ron Paul's on the wrong side here. This is when government is doing something right, IE) protecting individuals from arbritary dismisalls which are unreasonable. If this law was to pass how would workers unionise and effectively bargin with there employees? It would be impossible. This isn't about removing excessive union power like Thatcher did, this is attacking the core essentials of worker rights.

 

[Leoreth]

Exactly. This is why libertarian dogma of keeping government out of these things will not increase overall liberty, despite their claims. This takes away the liberty of a wide set of employees to secure privileges to a much smaller set of employers.

 

[NYHunter]

My only problem with it being implemented currently is that you are removing state protection of workers while keeping in place the state protections of employers. This bill does not appear to remove any of those, and is therefore quite ineffective in expanding liberty as it is choosing which side gets to keep it's special protections.

 

[Kozmos]

I think Ron Paul wants to remove everyone's rights so they can all duke it out in court, which is a terrible idea and slanted heavily to the rich and influential.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think Ron Paul wants to remove everyone's rights so they can all duke it out in court, which is a terrible idea and slanted heavily to the rich and influential.

He could salvage it by demanding the incorporation of holmgang into American law, which would at least serve to upset the more obvious demographic imbalances.

 

[Cutlass]

And people think Paul isn't just another corporate crony

 

[Berzerker]

While Paul claims he is for individual liberty, his support for the Truth in Employment Act shows that when its comes to the workplace, an employer's liberty trumps that of a worker.

its the employer's property

I dont have the freedom to force others to employ me

 

[aelf]

Who? What? What is the employer's property?

 

[Arakhor]

its the employer's property

I dont have the freedom to force others to employ me

Ahh, the good old bad old days of corporate laissez-faire policy.

 

[Arwon]

Yep. There's no freedom like mythical abstract non-freedom freedom.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'm all for freedom of association, and do not think that joining a union should itself be grounds for firing someone. However, those who choose not to show up for work due to a strike should have no expectation of keeping their job. Adhering to silly union rules that require prefabricated things be disassembled and reassembled by union labor is also reason enough to fire someone. The employer should never be forced to acknowledge the authority of a union or negotiate with them, but contracts into which employers and unions freely enter should be upheld.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm all for freedom of association, and do not think that joining a union should itself be grounds for firing someone. However, those who choose not to show up for work due to a strike should have no expectation of keeping their job. Adhering to silly union rules that require prefabricated things be disassembled and reassembled by union labor is also reason enough to fire someone. The employer should never be forced to acknowledge the authority of a union or negotiate with them, but contracts into which employers and unions freely enter should be upheld.

In practice that means only that labor makes far less money.

 

[Arwon]

I'm all for freedom of association, and do not think that joining a union should itself be grounds for firing someone. However, those who choose not to show up for work due to a strike should have no expectation of keeping their job.

In what practical sense then do I as a worker, freely associating with others, actually have any ability to actually defend my interests during periods of collective bargaining, when I have no ability to threaten to withdraw my labour until an agreement is reached? How is that a fair bargaining process, when one party can just refuse to budge indefinitely, dragging out bargaining for as long as they want with no fear?

Do you similarly believe employers should not be allowed to lock employees out, or is this a one-sided thing?

The right to take industrial action should absolutely be a legally protected one, especially during periods of collective bargaining. That means strikes and lockouts as well as other forms of action by both parties.