Thursday, May 31, 2012

Coercion Has Consequences

Unions once helped advance working conditions, but now union rules hurt workers because they stifle growth by making companies less flexible. When I arrived at CBS, I was stunned to discover that I couldn't even watch a video in a tape player without risking a grievance being filed by a union editor, saying I'd encroached on his job. Work ground to a halt while we waited for a union specialist to press the "on" button. ABC and CBS, being private businesses that had to compete, eventually got rid of those rules. But it took years.
Unions eventually hurt union workers because unionized companies atrophy. Non-union Toyota grew, while GM shrank. JetBlue Airlines blossomed, while unionized TWA and Pan Am went out of business. Unions "protect" workers all the way to the unemployment line.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/30/improving_life_for_workers_114310.html

A union does one thing well - it allows a small group of people to prevent competition from other workers.  It provides a small group - those inside the union - a monopoly on labor.  It is nonsensical to think a monopoly backed by the coercive force of the government is going to help more than it hurts.

A money quote: 
Economic historian Robert Higgs joked that it will always be easier to rally politically inclined people behind unrealistic, revolutionary causes than to rally them around subtle economic progress, because no crowd marches behind a banner proclaiming, "Toward a Marginally Improved Society!"

No comments:

Post a Comment