It doesn’t seem to matter to Obama that the federal debt already has us $14 trillion in the hole — $140,000 per household. The answer from the Harvard masterminds is to unionize the contractors and subcontractors, to jack up the price of a mile of road to even more inflated levels. FULL ARTICLE by Ralph Reiland
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15316/another-genius-idea-from-central-planning/
Another Genius Idea from Central Planning
Previous post: Don’t Buy Government Bonds
Next post: Where Profit Comes From
{ 24 comments }
I couldn’t agree more. One problem though. When liberals relocate from the liberal meccas they created with mass unemployment, high taxes, and high crime, they continue to vote democrat in their new havens completely ignorant that that behavior is the genesis of their exodus. We should build a wall around all major liberal regions to keep them in. Let them live with their decision to keep electing fiscal irresponsibilty.
Part of this country tried that before.
Escape from New York isn’t a historical documentary.
The Problem is better solved by dismantling forced association with people in arbitrarily drawn political boundaries.
Progressives could bankrupt their own, wherever they lived, and if the moved to a more prosperous area, those already living there wouldn’t need to be dragged down by the eventual adoption by the local government of their ruinous fantastical policies.
Further, you are free to build a wall around your property to keep them out, but you have no authority to tell me to keep them out of my land – where I may wish to welcome them to either adopt their worldview or to teach them the theory of peace.
Iawai, Be careful how high you built your wall because I’m sure with the progressives there will be certain rules on how high your wall can be. We don’t have the authority to tell you to keep them out but I’m sure they will eventually tell you what you can do with your property. Do you have a tree that needs to be removed? Watch out. Do you have some insect or animal that is “endangered”? Do you care about the progressives putting a house of reformed pedophiles or ex-druggers in your neighborhood? How about some HUD homes that become refuge for gang bangers? The list can go on. I always love the rich progressives that are concerned about the poor and indigent and want to support taxes for everything. Haven’t you figured out why? They already have theirs and want to make sure you don’t get yours.
So the bottom line is, watch out for your property rights because they will be attacked. Have a nice day. I guess after all these years of experience of progressives in California I have become a little cynical. Just call be Archie Bunker.
Yes. This has already happened in Nevada and Arizona and is underway in Colorado. I imagine this happened in Florida as well, but I’m a Western American.
They leave California because everybody votes for stupid economic policies, yet continue to vote for stupid economic policies once they arrive in their new home.
Next up: capital controls!
The problem isn’t so much “collective bargaining” so much as it is that many of the counter measures companies can take against abuses (such as contracts or firing union members) are illegal, and the government can force a company to negotiate in “good faith” if negotiations fail, giving the unions leverage they would not have otherwise.
Agreed. If workers want to form a union, they should be free to do so; however, the degree to which workers are protected by gov’t regulation is ridiculous. The market could easily sort this out; if the public is sympathetic, they may divert their purchases away from the anti-union business, or the “scabs” they can hire may be a significantly lower quality worker than the striking members.
If the striking members prove to be easily replacable with no appreciable decline in productivity or revenue, then the would-be union is just trying to extort more than their market value from the employer.
I agree with you David. I was reading Economics in One Lesson recently on the topic of unions and I think Hazlitt’s argument made a lot of sense on the subject of unions.
My understanding is that unions true function should be to help workers establish a given price for their labor. They also can function to make it easier to find skilled labor. What government does is screw this system up by pushing it too far in both directions. It allows unions to elevate their wage above MRP which eventually causes layoffs, and by petitioning for laws that create regulations surrounding what people have to do to become employees through government mandated licensing requirements.
When unions voluntarily work together to push for a higher wage and have to face the consequences of loss if they are wrong (if there are indeed people who are willing/able to work the same job for the same or lower wage) their negotiation is entirely legitimate. The business loss is also legitimate, as when the owner isn’t listening to his workers or realizing their value he can learn about this by virtue of not getting workers who are as good due to his desire to hold the price of labor down.
Hazlitt also makes the point that a business taking a loss on one employees MRP is much less of a problem than the worker getting a significantly lower wage due to not knowing the worth of his skills. So unions can help make the price visible to prospective workers in a way it would not be otherwise.
Anyway, I thought it was good I read this recently, as while in context I understand people talk of unions negatively, I wasn’t thinking about anything positive.
Hold on!
Googling for “Employees have the right to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join, and assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employers, and to choose not to do any of these activities.”, we find:
http://www.hdfh.com/2010/12/nlrb-announces-proposed-rule-requiring-posting-of-notice-on-employee-rights/
“On December 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) did something it rarely does: it indicated its intent to change labor law requirements through the regulatory process, rather than its normal process of case-by-case adjudication.
See full text of NLRB’s proposed rule on employee rights notice posting, including introductory commentary. NOTE: This is just a proposed rule at this time, with a sixty-day comment period now open.”
So it’s still in the air.
We also get the “Full Text of Proposed Notice”
which ends in a reassuring “This is an official Government Notice and must not be defaced by anyone.”
Of course, the Obamanites would blame this catastrophe on among other reasons, the lack of union-promoting posters in the break rooms at Toyota and Honda factories.
Ohhh Henry
GM remains insolvent (just like certain Wall St firms). It is merely a matter of time before it ceases to exist in its present form. I sure hope some parts of the whole remain intact and in business (like Corvette, the LS engine plant, Cadillac, GM Performance, etc.). Perhaps they’ll be purchased by some other manufacturers. Perhaps the good bits will end up being transhipped to Mexico or Malaysia or India or even China. One thing is for certain, there is no future for Government Motors. I reckon even silly ninny Obama realises this, but he likely reckons he’ll be long gone before the collapse so doesn’t really give a toss.
Sione
Is Atlas Shrugging? GM is Twentieth Century Motors. Obama is Mr.Thompson.It’s amazing how life imitates art.
So… Who is John Galt?
His name is Jared Lee Loughner, but in the real world, as opposed to Annie Rand’s fantasy, things aren’t going so well for him.
So Jared Lee Loughner is a genius entrepreneur with a solid foundation in ethics, morals, and economics; who is against violence and coercion and so decided to leave rather than stay.
Oh wait…
Have you ever read the book? Your comment makes no sense.
So the premise here is that if workers know their rights, they will undoubtedly unionize, which will of course destroy civilization as we know it.
What notable is not so much the reflexive hatred of unions, which is standard, but the implicit admission that only by keeping people ignorant of their rights under the law can they be kept out of unions. Let them know they can’t be fired for voting for a union, and they will all, apparently join unions. Ignorance is held up as the necessary condition; if the workers know their rights, disaster will surely follow. Disaster for whom, I wonder?
On the other hand, the spirit put in evidence by the forceful posterization is that the workplace suddenly becomes an acceptable venue for in-your-face propaganda by unions. A bizarre idea at best. What about lawyers allowed to put up malpractice counseling in doctor’s waiting rooms? How about no-fee-no-win lawyers allowed to put up their signs on your front door, seeing that the stairs become slippery in the winter?
Nobody will know what a “union” is if the government doesn’t tell them? Really?
“Their rights” is some inane government-enforced nonsense.
If you personally just want to tell people they can voluntary organize, ok. But you have no right to force people to suggest that others organize or that they need to organize.
How do you rationalize advocating threatening violence to tell people that they can organize?
“So the premise here is that if workers know their rights, they will undoubtedly unionize….”
No, this is not the premise here; the rest of your comments are therefore baseless.
To the contrary, Ralph Rieland’s suggestion that employers post “counter-union” posters acknowledges employees’ capacities to reason and possibly decide, after becoming fully-informed and weighing many considerations, NOT to join or form a union.
Many unions are nothing more than government-protected monopolies, ultimately acquiring their power by special dispensation from the cardinal rule of civil society: prohibition of the initiation of force. Politicians let unions pursue their interests by force, in return for votes to keep themselves in power. Our grievances with unions are therefore really grievances with politicians.
Ask not what you can do for your employer. Ask what your employer can do for you.
Comments on this entry are closed.