The right to strike

      Today (Sept 23), the United Auto Workers (UAW) strike against General Motors enters its eighth day.  Talks are expected to continue for at least several days.  Neither side has indicated that any progress is being made. 

      Meanwhile, most of the Democratic Presidential candidates, as well as candidates for other offices, are lining up behind the strikers to show their support and solidarity with them.  General Motors, they all say, is another mean, greedy corporation who cares only about profits, not the welfare of its workers, and needs to be taught a lesson!  As for the Republicans … they're pretty much keeping mum, understanding that this is a no-win issue for them. 
      So where does your Favorite Blogger stand?  Should workers have the right to form labor unions and strike for better pay and working conditions?
      Yes, absolutely.
      Should employers have the right to hire union workers and negotiate with them?  Yes, again, absolutely.
      Should workers have the right to NOT join labor unions?  Yes.  Should employers have the right to NOT hire union workers, or to fire them for not showing up for work?  Yes, absolutely. 
      In short, when it comes to employment, all sides SHOULD have the right to do whatever the heck they want to do, or NOT want to do, so long as their actions are peaceful and honest.  Every party SHOULD have the right to say "no", anywhere, anytime, for any reason.  See my article.   
      Here's an example:
            Employee or prospective employee:  "Pay me money."
            Employer:  "No."
      This is how the system SHOULD work.  I say "should" because there's a complication here, and it's government meddling.  When it comes to running a business, government has all kinds of rules and regulations and money-spending programs that interfere with what should otherwise be the free and voluntary cooperation among consenting individuals. 
      Some of these laws are specifically designed to benefit employers, such as:  subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, licensing laws, and various regulations that make if difficult, if not impossible, for other businesses to compete with them.  Remember that, as a general rule, all governmental programs  benefit some preferred business or industry, at the expense of all of us.  The biggest victims center around the jobs that never get created in the first place.
      Other laws and regulations are specially designed to benefit employees.  These include such things as wage controls.  See my article on why wage controls are a terrible idea.  Then there are labor union protections.  Under laws promoted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in a "lawful" union strike, employers may not fire striking employees, else the employer will face fines and/or imprisonment.
      Everybody wants a good, stable, well-paying job.  But the correct and proper way to achieve that goal is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market work.  The entirety of human history has endlessly proven and re-proven that individual freedom and limited government is the one true path to prosperity and wealth. 
      In a true free market, businesses strive to produce the best possible product at the best possible price.  Doing that requires them to hire and keep the very best workers.  But, with every other business is also trying to do the same thing, we end up with competition for a limited resource:  good workers.  All this competition drives up wages, and everyone benefits.  Employers are NOT the bad guys here.
      But then government throws a monkey wrench into this well-oiled machine.  They pass some crazy law saying that if your employees refuse to show up for work (i.e. strike), which could cost your business monstrously huge bucks, that you cannot fire them and replace them with more loyal employees.  If you do fire them, then the NLRB will file charges and the government will fine or imprison you. 

     Even if the NLRB did not exist - and there was a time before it existed - labor unions had a technique to force employers to give them what they wanted.  Their method:   violence.  Labor unions and violence have a long, cozy relationship that goes back a long way. 
      Do you notice the common thread here?  Government threatening businesses with forced imprisonment if they do not "bargain" with labor unions.  Labor unions threatening businesses, or replacement workers, with violence if they hire "scabs" and refuse the union's demands.  The common thread here is COERCION.  And coercion has no place in a truly free market.  Government's ONLY role in labor disputes - or any human activity, for that matter - should be to ban all coercion and prosecute those who resort to violence.
      But as bad as the situation is with the UAW-General Motors standoff, there is one small bit of positive news:  General Motors is a private, for-profit business.  If they cannot make a profit, then everyone loses their job.  The UAW's demands may be steep, but even they understand this basic concept.  Sadly, that's not the case with public-sector labor unions, such as teacher unions.  Their employer is the government, and unlike a private business, the government is not required to make a "profit".  Its revenue comes from taxes, which are collected coercively.  Thus, there is no limit to what public-sector labor unions can demand - and get.  (Notice that every time coercion is involved, things get screwed up?)