Brian Holtz, we seem to be disputing basic facts.
The man says "I don't want more laws just [repeal] the ones against organizing unions... Again I don't want a bunch of laws favoring either way... just ... a level playing field." You blatantly assert that he "very clearly implies that he wants to add to those laws." I think he means what he says. You write "The Taft-Hartley Act [is] never mentioned by name in any LP Platform". In fact the current platform of the California LP, of which you are a member, specifically calls for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. "We call for the repeal of all government laws and regulations interfering with employer- employee relationships such as the wage and hour laws, the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act ... http://ca.lp.org/platform/Platform2006-2007.pdf A web search shows many others, such as Minnesota LP: http://www.lpmn.org/platform.php And this piece by Murray Rothbard compares Taft-Hartley injunctions to slavery: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty4a.asp The Taft-Hartley allows states to outlaw union shops, and many do. The Act forbids secondary boycotts, too. Cesar Chavez only managed to organize his Farm Workers union because he could picket grocery stores selling non-union crops before the secondary boycott rule applied to agriculture. Today, unions cannot picket importers like WalMart for selling non-union goods, some of which are literally made by slave labor in China. The "net effect of US labor law" is certainly open to dispute, and many would say it puts unions at a disadvantage. You claimed that the LP platform would alienate Tony by advocating drug legalization etc. Again I ask why you think so? You can't change the subject by throwing money at it. The man asked for less government in labor relations and specifically said he did not want new laws. Maybe he just wants the government to leave people alone. Don't you? Your analysis of labor markets is technically correct, but only if we read carefully to the very last word. The law of supply and demand absolutely applies to wages. "Capital intensity", the investment per worker, does determine overall wage rates. However, that only means that the demand for labor depends on available capital. In Peru I met engineers sewing clothes and driving taxis because the country did not have the money to employ their skills. Increasing capital will create jobs and so raises wages. More jobs will make wages go up; more workers will still push wages down. Harland Harrison --- Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes : > A friend writes: > > X> Right or wrong, you probably just sent a new (now > former) libertarian packing. <X > > There was nothing in his message saying > he wanted any more liberty on any > issue, so I'm not so sure he was a libertarian > earlier in the day. However, he might start > becoming one if he follows any of the > links I gave him. > > X> We need to engage newbies in the areas > where they agree with us and completely > ignore areas of disagreement. <X > > I agree with the former sentiment, and I'll concede > I should have mentioned all the ways in which the > LP lines up against corporate subsidies and > special protections -- even though that could as > easily just turn him into a > better-armed anti-capitalism leftist. I did point > out our agreement that > the playing field should be level (even if he > doesn't understand what that > means). In the absence of his mentioning > any other areas of potential > agreement, it seemed reasonable to give him the > pro-market perspective on collective bargaining. > > My biggest concern in this thread was that Carl's > remarks could be > misinterpreted to support the insidious myth that > the long-run equilibrium > wage level is determined by supply and demand. > That myth leads to all the > wrong policies on free trade, immigration, > population, wages and hours > rules, minimum and maximum working age, occupational > licensure, etc. > Economics textbooks tell us that the long-run > equilibrium wage level is in > fact determined by the marginal productivity of > labor, because wages tend to > be bid up by employers right to the point at which > buying a marginal unit of > labor no longer generates extra profit. See the > graph at > http://marketliberal.org/Lesson.html#Productivity > for an illustration of how compensation and productivity > tend to move in lockstep, regardless of labor > laws and other factors. See > http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-are-wages-and-productivity-relate > d.html for more details. [It's true that the market > value of the product of labor can temporarily drop > if there is an exogenous shock increasing the > labor supply -- e.g. an immigration policy change -- > but in the long run, the market value of the product > of labor is overwhelmingly determined by > technology and capital intensity (including human > capital i.e. education)]. > > I can think of only one other myth of folk economics > that is more > politically insidious than thinking that labor > shortages can increase hourly > compensation over the long term. That is the > related (and thoroughly > discredited) Labor_theory_of_value > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value> > , which if accepted > leads inexorably to socialism and command economics > instead of market economics. > > Harland writes: > > HH> Tony sounded like a libertarian and you tried to > disagree with him. He > wanted less government. He did not "approach us > seeking advocacy for more of the kind of market > regulations that we're trying to repeal." He said exactly > the opposite: "I don't want more laws just repel the > ones against organizing unions." <HH > > Tony didn't mention (and probably cannot name) any > general laws "against organizing unions" in arbitrary > industries, but there is a lot of state and > federal law that forces employers to recognize labor > unions and bargain "in good faith" with them. Tony > very clearly implied he wanted to add to those > laws when he complained that one can be "fired for > trying to organize a union". The 2004 LP Platform stated: > > LP> An employer should have the right to recognize, > or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining > agent of some, or all, of its employees. We oppose > government interference in bargaining, such as > compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an > obligation to bargain. > Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor > Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws > which prohibit employers from making voluntary > contracts with unions. <LP > > You continue: > > HH> If you want to appeal to that voter, tell him > that the LP wants to repeal the Taft-Hartley act, > a bunch of other labor laws, and get the > government out of labor-management negotiations. <HH > > Getting the government out of the picture is exactly > what I told him the LP wants when I said > "LP wants a level playing field". > The Taft-Hartley Act (never mentioned by name in > any LP Platform) makes some pro-business > amendments to the NLRA, but the net effect of the > U.S. labor law is of course to tilt the playing field > toward labor cartels. > > HH> Our platform may alienate YOU, but what reason > do you have to think he > would disagree? I only saw Tony quoted on labor > relations. <HH > > Heh, let's ask Tony if he (like the LP Platform) > wants employers to have complete freedom of > association to hire and fire as they see fit. If he > agrees with that, I'll donate $100 to the LP in your > name. > > BH> If employees can be fired for organizing a > union, they can also quit en > masse and work for an employer offering a better > deal. The right to fire > and the right to quit are two sides of the same > coin. The LP wants a level > playing field too, but in America the field is > clearly tilted toward unions. > For details of all the special legislation giving > unions monopoly powers > [...] <BH > > HH> Quitting and firing are not "two sides of the > same coin" at all in this country. Unemployment > insurance, wrongful termination torts, etc make > then quite different. <HH > > Thanks for changing the context, which before my > "but..." was clearly about > fundamental rights and not the status quo. > Libertarians believe that the > fundamental human rights to quit and to fire are > symmetrical applications of the principle of freedom > of association, and that this symmetry is > independent of any restrictions that some > government may now be imposing on > some people. Do you dispute this? > > HH> Employees cannot "quit en masse" when the cannot > legally strike <HH > > They most certainly would be able to quit en masse > when the LP repeals all > laws against striking. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
