I was very critical of the General Motors bailout since it largely was designed to give undeserved special benefits to the UAW union. I’m also very down of teacher unions because they sabotage reforms that would help poor children trapped in failed government schools.
And I’m definitely opposed to the excessive pay and benefits that politicians grant to bureaucrats in exchange for votes and money from government employee unions (as cleverly depicted in this great Michael Ramirez cartoon).
So why, then, do I have mixed feelings about the recently enacted right-to-work law in Michigan?
Here’s some of what I wrote almost 25 years ago for the Villanova Law Review, beginning with my general philosophy on the role of government in labor markets.
…government should not interfere with certain personal decisions, including the freedom of employers and employees to contract freely, unfettered by labor regulations. …My position is one of strict neutrality. The government should not take side in employer-employee issues. …this is a question of property rights. If another person owns a business, I do not have a right to interfere with his choices as to what he does with his property – so long as he does not interfere with my rights of life, liberty, and property.
That’s all fine and well. Standard libertarian boilerplate, one might even say, and I’ve certainly expressed these views on television (see here, here, and here).
But then I explore some implications. If you believe in a system based on property rights and private contracts, then right-to-work laws are an unjust form of intervention.
…a property rights perspective also would reject so-called right-to-work laws which infringe upon the employers’ freedom of contract to hire only union members which is something employers may wish to do since it can lower transactions costs. …Some would argue that nobody should be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. The relevant issue in this instance, however, is not whether one can be forced to join a union, because a person cannot; if he does not like the union, he can refuse the job. The real issue is whether a business and its employees should have the freedom to choose to sign contracts which have union membership as a condition of employment.
All that being said, I’m glad Michigan just enacted a right-to-work law. I know it’s not ideal policy, but my rationale is that most government labor laws (such as the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris–La Guardia Act) tilt the playing field in favor of unions.
So until that glorious day when we get government out of labor markets, I view right-to-work laws as a second-best alternative. They’re a form of intervention that partially compensates for other forms of intervention.
A good analogy is that I don’t like tax loopholes, but I like the fact that they enable people to keep more of the money they earn. The ideal system, of course, would be a simple and fair flat tax. But in the absence of real reform, I don’t want politicians to get rid of preferences if it means they get more of our money to waste. Deductions should only be eliminated if they use every penny of additional revenue to lower tax rates.
Returning to what happened in Michigan, let’s close with an amusing cartoon that mocks Obama’s dismal record on jobs.
P.S. Since I’ve written something that might appeal to union bosses, I feel the need to compensate. So feel free to enjoy some good cartoons mocking unionized bureaucrats by clicking here, here, here, and here.
[…] hold them accountable.” By contrast, Tennessee voters will get to vote on whether to enshrine “right-to-work” in the state’s […]
[…] accountable.” By contrast, Tennessee voters will get to vote on whether to enshrine “right-to-work” in the state’s […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] There won’t be any serious effort for forced unionization in right-to-work states. […]
[…] success appealing to private-sector union members if they come across as pro-market (which implies neutrality between employers and employees) rather than pro-business (which implies siding with […]
[…] right to hire workers exclusively from a unionized pool of labor. As Daniel J. Mitchell has noted, right-to-work laws are a second-best, compensatory solution to other forms of government intervention in labor markets. Furthermore, giving primacy to an […]
[…] have some theoretical problems with right-to-work laws, but the WSJ is correct that private employers tend to avoid states where […]
[…] a point I’ve made before (here, here, here, here, here, and here), so there’s no need to elaborate on that […]
[…] a point I’ve made before (here, here, here, here, here, and here), so there’s no need to elaborate on that […]
Dan, above you say “The real issue is whether a business and its employees should have the freedom to choose to sign contracts which have union membership as a condition of employment.”
But you’re missing the point. Let me rewrite this to emphasize the freedom missing here: “The real issue is whether a business and its employees should have the freedom to choose to sign OR NOT SIGN contracts which have union membership as a condition of employment.”
They should also be entitled to sign contracts that do NOT have union membership as a condition of employment. That’s the crucial freedom that a right to work law restores.
[…] Right-to-Work Laws Shouldn’t Exist, so Why Am I Happy about What Happened in Michigan? […]
To Stephan F.:
You said, “Stop promoting false band-aid like solutions like ‘Right to Work’ laws, as these DO NOT address the real problems. . . . The repeal of this disastrous law is, in fact, essential, and is the only ‘real’ solution to a real man-made problem.”
But don’t you think there’s a place for incremental reform? Sometimes a total reform (as Mr. Mitchell said above, “until that glorious day”…) isn’t immediately feasible, isn’t politically possible—when that’s the case, shouldn’t we take smaller steps in the right direction, rather than do nothing?
At least in a case like this, it’s not just that the small steps are good in themselves (though they are—as Mr. Mitchell said, Michigan will be better off with the right-to-work law than without it), but also that (as Mr. Thomas said above) the unions take a lot of money from their employees, which under the new law the employees will have a choice about—which means that the unions will have less money to fight future political battles, which will make it easier to pursue further reforms in the future. This effect may be very significant—apparently when Wisconsin gave public-sector workers the choice of whether to pay union dues, “between 25% and 40%” immediately stopped paying dues.
In other words, perhaps as with any war or long-term struggle, every little victory counts, because even the smallest victories and defeats compound themselves over time and make further progress more or less difficult.
Your right Dan, “Right to Work Laws” are NOT the answer to the problem here, and unions aren’t, in fact, the real problem. Blaming unions for dubious behavior is like blaming a duck for being attracted to water. People are simply distracted by the actions of unions so they naturally misunderstand what the crux of the issue is. Of course unions act immorally, irrationally, & stupidly. And it’s typical that most people (I’d guess about 99.8%) know nothing about why or how unions exists. So lets gets this straight once and for all.
It doesn’t matter whether you think unions are good or bad,
it doesn’t matter whether you think unions are necessary or not,
it doesn’t matter whether you think unions “help” workers or not, and,
it doesn’t matter whether you think unions causes higher prices or not.
What does matter is that Unions — as they stand today — are unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral — period.
People, it’s time to quit paying attention to the irrelevant & stop gawking at things like “cause & effect” — these are mere distractions that prevent the possibility of real solutions to real problems. Stop promoting false band-aid like solutions like “Right to Work” laws, as these DO NOT address the real problems. The crux of the matter is this: unions derive their power through government force, and to disempower them you must overturn the law that gives them that power. And the law that did that was the “National Labor Relations Act of 1935″, aka the Wagner Act. The repeal of this disastrous law is, in fact, essential, and is the only “real” solution to a real man-made problem.
For those still interested, I suggest you follow this link:
http://www.cato.org/weekly/index.php?vid_id=158
Dan, I think distinguishing public from private unions is important. I believe that there is no bonafide negotiator vs public unions.
Hello Dan Mitchell, Thank you for your insight into the right to work or “Freedom to work” as it’s called here in Michigan. I think you may have overlooked the continued right of any business to keep the status quo if they wish. All they need do is enter into an exclusive agreement with the union as an employment agency and then hire their “employees” directly through them. This then in no way infringes upon any company’s rights to give exclusive representation as a contract item to the union of their choice. It simply removes the mandate that I as an employee MUST donate my hard earned pay to thwart my own beliefs through union activism and political donations. I do appreciate your well thought out analysis of all things economic… and some things politic.
Thank you,
Douglas Thomas
Dan, I thought this was a good article on the problem with RTW…
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work/#axzz2EyEsmZg4
Being required to join a union in order to accept a job is a blatant violation of our freedom and liberty. It’s a shame that we have to put legislation into place to protect against it, but the reality is the individual is severely handicapped trying to face down an institutional baron like unions. Right-to-work laws even out the playing field.
Your law review article to the contrary notwithstanding, Tom Woods has amply documented that coercion has always–always–been an inextricable part of trade unionism, at least in the US and UK. Unions exist, and have existed, to initiate force against employers and other workers. They are not just free associations of individuals, but are more akin to the Mafia, who make workers an offer they can’t refuse. Unions are thus illegitimate organizations which, by their very nature, should be illegal, like any criminal gang. Right-to-work laws are thus a great step in the direction of removing coercion from the workplace and the eventual banishment of unions to the ash heap of history.