Proud to be a Replacement Worker

[Charles M.]

I've been working at Ralphs on Beverly and Doheny for nearly 3 months. This was my first job. The lucrative pay and high demand for workers drew me to it. I simply walked in and filled out application, and was given the hours I'd work.  Read more...

[Fisticuffs]

I've been working at Ralphs on Beverly and Doheny for nearly 3 months. This was my first job. The lucrative pay and high demand for workers drew me to it. I simply walked in and filled out application, and was given the hours I'd work.  Read more...

Is there some sort of libertarian consensus that unions are wrong?

If there is, it doesn't seem natural to me.  Unions are just one more form of association.  Sure, it's wrong when they use political manuevering to get what they want - but it's equally wrong when employer companies do this.

If a bunch of grocery workers want to quit en masse, then the free market allows it.  They believe the compensation they receive is inadequate, and that, because this view is widely held, they increase their persuasive power by saying it collectively.  As long as this collective is completely voluntary, how is it wrong when workers use their greater numbers and organization to achieve an end, but not when employers use their greater money and organization to achieve an end?

So Ryan thinks he's getting a good deal, fine.  He doesn't have to strike - and luckily he doesn't work in a state where they force certain professions to join a union.  But if people want to protest an employment arrangement they consider unfair, they don't have to be confined by such a simplistic capitalist worldview as Ryans - they can take their complaints, as an industry, directly to the employers and customers.  In a free market, employers (in the guise of giant corporate conglomerates) aren't the only ones that decide what's fair and then dictate terms to individuals.  Unions insure that the interests of individuals are represented on a more equal basis than they would otherwise have if they did not speak collectively.

[Charles M.]

I don't think libertarians are generally opposed to unions, assuming the union is fully voluntary.  As far as I'm aware though, this is almost never the case.  Here are some points I'd make:

1) Unions almost always harass people who won't strike or replacement workers who come in during the strike.

2) The laws are normally set up so that employers are not allowed to just fire everyone and start over when they go on strike.

3) Companies are not allowed to forbid unions, which they should be allowed to in a free market.  It could be a term in the employment contract.

4) Unions are just generally difficult to empathize with because of their lazy, entitlement mentality.  If you've ever worked anyplace with a union, you'll know what I mean.  They are all about doing the minimum possible and removing all mechanisms whereby more able employees move up the ranks more quickly.

5) Pro-union people are basically pro-monopoly in a one sided way.  They want to see a labor monopoly where all the workers in a particular industry join together to artificially increase wages.  If all the gas stations in a city tried to cartelize like that, people would scream bloody murder.

6) Unions go on strike always at critical moments when a company is desperate.  The flip side to this is if a company waited until an employee had purchased a new home and his wife was pregnant, then threatened to fire him if he didn't take a pay cut.

I don't like unions and I don't like cartels.  They are both sleazy ways of attempting to eliminate competition so you can get more than your due.  They probably have to be tolerated to the extent that they can maintain themselves under a free market.  We don't need to encourage them though.

[Fisticuffs]

1) Unions almost always harass people who won't strike or replacement workers who come in during the strike.

When it turns violent, this is a problem.  Otherwise, when you put yourself in the middle of a dispute between two parties, shouldn't you expect to be drawn in?  Anytime you enter a situation where there is turmoil, you take the risk of the experience upon yourself (hence the usually inflated replacement worker wage).

2) The laws are normally set up so that employers are not allowed to just fire everyone and start over when they go on strike.

Yeah, that's wrong, but that's not a complaint against unions so much as gov't interference.

3) Companies are not allowed to forbid unions, which they should be allowed to in a free market.  It could be a term in the employment contract.

In a libertarian society, I find it extremely unlikely that companies could successfully prevent unionization without the use of force, even if it is a term of employment.  Just my personal feeling.

4) Unions are just generally difficult to empathize with because of their lazy, entitlement mentality.  If you've ever worked anyplace with a union, you'll know what I mean.  They are all about doing the minimum possible and removing all mechanisms whereby more able employees move up the ranks more quickly.

Have you ever worked someplace with a union?  I've never worked in a union industry, so I personally don't know what they're like.  However, they sound like most people I know who don't work for themselves.  Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

5) Pro-union people are basically pro-monopoly in a one sided way.  They want to see a labor monopoly where all the workers in a particular industry join together to artificially increase wages.  If all the gas stations in a city tried to cartelize like that, people would scream bloody murder.

I think people generally feel that big business does some de facto cartelizing, and it's a hell of a lot easier for business to do it than for individual workers to.

6) Unions go on strike always at critical moments when a company is desperate.  The flip side to this is if a company waited until an employee had purchased a new home and his wife was pregnant, then threatened to fire him if he didn't take a pay cut.

You make it sound like its easy for people to go on strike.  It may not always be "fair", but its certainly not a walk in the park - and I don't believe it's taken lightly.  I find it hard to believe people would risk months without pay for superfluous employer gouging.  In the history of worker-employer relations, I think there are many more examples of employers bullying individual workers than individual workers bullying employers.

I don't like unions and I don't like cartels.  They are both sleazy ways of attempting to eliminate competition so you can get more than your due.  They probably have to be tolerated to the extent that they can maintain themselves under a free market.  We don't need to encourage them though.

I feel the same way about corporations - they may exist in a free market even without gov't support and sanction, but I don't see any need to encourage that way of doing business.  But then again, if it's a truly free market endeavor, it wouldn't need us to encourage it - it would simply exist.

In the case of unions, I think they represent a case where workers think that competition is not in their interest.  As long as no force is used, free market means the choice to compete - or not to.  If enough of the potential workforce thinks its more profitable to strike than to work, the employer must be doing something wrong, IMHO.

In the case of corporate cartels, there's usually a much bigger profit margin to be made by undercutting a cartel than there is by undercutting a union worker, I would think.

[Paul Birch]

1) Unions almost always harass people who won't strike or replacement workers who come in during the strike.

When it turns violent, this is a problem.

It's not a "problem" - it's a crime committed by or at the instigation of the trade union - a direct violation of the rights of the employers and would-be employees. Such anti-libertarian harassment - taken to whatever lengths, up to and including murder, the law will let them get away with - is standard trade union policy and, along with the threat of breach of contract (strikes), their main weapon.

2) The laws are normally set up so that employers are not allowed to just fire everyone and start over when they go on strike.

Yeah, that's wrong, but that's not a complaint against unions so much as gov't interference.

But those laws come about through union pressure too - often by threatening the government with mass violence if they don't give them the licence to breach contracts and commit collective crimes.

In a libertarian society, I find it extremely unlikely that companies could successfully prevent unionization without the use of force, even if it is a term of employment.  Just my personal feeling.

In a free market companies wouldn't try to prevent people from joining trades unions (except in breach of agreements previously entered into); they'd just prefer not to employ union members. So union wage rates would end up lower.

To a degree, this is already so; other than in the public sector or in publicly subsidised or restrictively licensed industries, wages are higher in non-unionised industries; union membership makes you worse off, especially after paying union dues. This is because the only way a union can bully the company into paying higher wages is by deliberately harming the company, thereby reducing the return to capital and the productivity growth rate (as do those excess wages themselves); in the long term, then (but within a couple of years), the real wage rate must be lower than would otherwise have obtained.

Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

Because their pay will be higher if they do more.

In the case of corporate cartels, there's usually a much bigger profit margin to be made by undercutting a cartel than there is by undercutting a union worker, I would think.

You miss the point. "Corporate cartels" exist in an open market in which would-be competitors are free to undercut the cartel (and that is why such cartels have a short half-life). By contrast, union cartels are maintained by force; sometimes by corrupt special privileges ("private laws"); sometimes by outright violence. Take away the force and forming a conventional trade union becomes a complete waste of time.

[Charles M.]

1) Unions almost always harass people who won't strike or replacement workers who come in during the strike.

When it turns violent, this is a problem.  Otherwise, when you put yourself in the middle of a dispute between two parties, shouldn't you expect to be drawn in?  Anytime you enter a situation where there is turmoil, you take the risk of the experience upon yourself (hence the usually inflated replacement worker wage).

What do you mean "drawn in"?  You shouldn't expect to be harassed, intimidated or attacked.  There should be no "risk" at all.  If there is, it is being wrongly imposed on you by the union.

3) Companies are not allowed to forbid unions, which they should be allowed to in a free market.  It could be a term in the employment contract.

In a libertarian society, I find it extremely unlikely that companies could successfully prevent unionization without the use of force, even if it is a term of employment.  Just my personal feeling.

Perhaps not, but the unions would have far less power without government backing and if the government actively defended people from violent coercion or harassment by unions.  How long could a janitor union survive without these tactics when almost anyone off the street could walk into the job?

4) Unions are just generally difficult to empathize with because of their lazy, entitlement mentality.  If you've ever worked anyplace with a union, you'll know what I mean.  They are all about doing the minimum possible and removing all mechanisms whereby more able employees move up the ranks more quickly.

Have you ever worked someplace with a union?  I've never worked in a union industry, so I personally don't know what they're like.  However, they sound like most people I know who don't work for themselves.  

I currently work at a place that has unionized workers.  The factory workers are in a union, I am not.  The union people are ridiculous.  They bring down the productivity of the entire place.  As an example, a large number of trivial tasks are categorized as union jobs, such as moving your desk within your office or transferring a computer from one office to another.  We are not allowed to do these tasks ourselves even though we could in 5 minutes.  When I first hired in I got yelled at for rearranging my office.

At some electronics companies, the engineers have to have a union technician press buttons on test equipment because that is a union job.  It's pathetic.  I've had friends who worked in the union when they were young.  When break time comes, everyone has to go on break.  My friend said something like "let me get this one last thing done and I'll be right there", and he got yelled at for it.  The thinking is that if anyone is allowed to work extra, they might just do it and make the others look bad.

Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

Why not just rob people if you can get away with it?  Economically speaking?

5) Pro-union people are basically pro-monopoly in a one sided way.  They want to see a labor monopoly where all the workers in a particular industry join together to artificially increase wages.  If all the gas stations in a city tried to cartelize like that, people would scream bloody murder.

I think people generally feel that big business does some de facto cartelizing, and it's a hell of a lot easier for business to do it than for individual workers to.

Why is it easier?  Who cares anyway?  You seem to be exactly buying into the union mentality that it's the employees versus the company.  Unions make businesses less productive, so screw things up for consumers, plus screw up the labor market for unemployed people who would like to get a job.  I'm not sure how a union would in any way counteract any sort of business level cartel.  The two stacked on top of each other would be doubly bad for your average consumer.

The union people are purely out for their own quasi-coercive gain at the expense of everyone who is not in the union.  If you happen to be half way competent and in the union, it's bad for you too.  The only people it may be good for are lazy people who achieve seniority in the union and can get away with slacking off all the time.  Even this is debatable.

6) Unions go on strike always at critical moments when a company is desperate.  The flip side to this is if a company waited until an employee had purchased a new home and his wife was pregnant, then threatened to fire him if he didn't take a pay cut.

You make it sound like its easy for people to go on strike.  It may not always be "fair", but its certainly not a walk in the park - and I don't believe it's taken lightly.  I find it hard to believe people would risk months without pay for superfluous employer gouging.  In the history of worker-employer relations, I think there are many more examples of employers bullying individual workers than individual workers bullying employers.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  It doesn't much matter to me whether they take it seriously or not.  Robbing a bank may be a hardship that people take seriously.  It's beside the point.

As far as employers bullying employees, it's no doubt happened, but so what?  If company A took advantage of workers B in 1926, how does it help if workers C go on strike against company D today?

In the case of unions, I think they represent a case where workers think that competition is not in their interest.  As long as no force is used, free market means the choice to compete - or not to.  If enough of the potential workforce thinks its more profitable to strike than to work, the employer must be doing something wrong, IMHO.

Competition is almost never in one single individual's or company's interest (that is, competition against him/it).  It would be nice if I could somehow become the only person with my particular skills available in this town.  I don't think it would be right for me to force that to happen though, by, say, harassing everyone who has my skill set and driving them out of town.

In the case of corporate cartels, there's usually a much bigger profit margin to be made by undercutting a cartel than there is by undercutting a union worker, I would think.

What difference does it make?  Why should people who want to work be blocked out of the market?

[Fisticuffs]

What do you mean "drawn in"?  You shouldn't expect to be harassed, intimidated or attacked.  There should be no "risk" at all.  If there is, it is being wrongly imposed on you by the union.

A strike is like any other protest, really - there's always risk involved because of the nature of the situation.  The free market often provides opportunities for people to resolve differences without resorting to political tactics like protests, but they still may be useful sometimes.  Historically speaking, unions have used tactics no less (much less, I bet) brutal than corporations have.

That said, it would be interesting to see what unions would look like without gov't support.  I wonder if the movement would have gotten off the ground at all in the 19th century is business hadn't been so eager to employ gov't coercion against laborers.

Perhaps not, but the unions would have far less power without government backing and if the government actively defended people from violent coercion or harassment by unions.  How long could a janitor union survive without these tactics when almost anyone off the street could walk into the job?

Maybe it couldn't survive, I dunno.  The basic power of a union is the power to increase the cost of doing business short term in order to gain some negotiating wiggle room.  The less skilled the job, the less power a strike has - sans the tactics you listed above.

My own view is that the union would become more like an advocacy organization, taking their message directly to consumers.  That's sort of what the Grocery Workers in CA have been doing and they've been successful in turning many customers away from the stores - not through threats or anything (although I believe there has been some violence), but just by raising a stink and bringing the issue to light.

I currently work at a place that has unionized workers.  The factory workers are in a union, I am not.  The union people are ridiculous.  They bring down the productivity of the entire place.  As an example, a large number of trivial tasks are categorized as union jobs, such as moving your desk within your office or transferring a computer from one office to another.  We are not allowed to do these tasks ourselves even though we could in 5 minutes.  When I first hired in I got yelled at for rearranging my office.

At some electronics companies, the engineers have to have a union technician press buttons on test equipment because that is a union job.  It's pathetic.  I've had friends who worked in the union when they were young.  When break time comes, everyone has to go on break.  My friend said something like "let me get this one last thing done and I'll be right there", and he got yelled at for it.  The thinking is that if anyone is allowed to work extra, they might just do it and make the others look bad.

That certainly is ridiculous - the scale certainly seems unbalanced in the union's direction for such things to occur.

Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

Why not just rob people if you can get away with it?  Economically speaking?

Hey, work with me here.  If a person does a certain amount of work and gets paid for that amount of work, is the person really pricing himself efficiently if he does more work without getting paid more?

Why is it easier?  Who cares anyway?  You seem to be exactly buying into the union mentality that it's the employees versus the company.

Like I said, the formation of unions usually is spurred by a lack of trust between employers and employees.  Yes, an individual always has the right to leave his workplace, but unions provide a way for workers to advance agendas over the entire industry.  Why is OK for a group of people with lots of capital to form a group to do business, but not ok for a group of people with lots of labor not to do the same (to wheel and deal with the employer with one voice)?

Unions make businesses less productive, so screw things up for consumers, plus screw up the labor market for unemployed people who would like to get a job.

If union workers are not *entitled* to a job, then nonworkers are no more *entitled* to a job, and stockholders are not *entitled* to a certain level of profits.  It's all the same messed up, jumbled picture that is a market economy.

As long as force is not used, I'm perfectly fine with some short term economic distortion if it means workers have a more level bargaining field with employers.  Regardless of what Paul may say, people's lives, livelihoods, and families are not straight economic matters, and people do get hurt by corporate culture and practices.  Empathy can be a powerful economic force.  So I tend to defend corporations.  You don't.  That's life - and remember, sometimes unions still lose, too, y'know.  :-)

I'm not sure how a union would in any way counteract any sort of business level cartel.  The two stacked on top of each other would be doubly bad for your average consumer.

I'm sure - I didn't mean to imply that a union somehow counteracted a business cartel.  I was just saying that cartels do exist, regardless of whether or not they are legal.  Just like unions did exist even when they were outlawed at certain times during the 19th century.

The union people are purely out for their own quasi-coercive gain at the expense of everyone who is not in the union.

Oh, well if we're talking about *quasi*-coercion, let's bring up the corporate personhood thing again :-)

Basically we agree in principle, we just have different emotional priorities.  I was just making sure there weren't libertarians out there who thought collectivization should be outlawed by the gov't or something.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  It doesn't much matter to me whether they take it seriously or not.  Robbing a bank may be a hardship that people take seriously.  It's beside the point.

Well, comparing what unions do to bank robbery is also besides the point.  :-)

As far as employers bullying employees, it's no doubt happened, but so what?  If company A took advantage of workers B in 1926, how does it help if workers C go on strike against company D today?

It doesn't, but perhaps if corporations had not been so heavy handed back then, collectivization wouldn't exist.  That doesn't justify labor collectivization today tho, but as long as it doesn't involve coercion it shouldn't require justification.

Competition is almost never in one single individual's or company's interest (that is, competition against him/it).  It would be nice if I could somehow become the only person with my particular skills available in this town.  I don't think it would be right for me to force that to happen though, by, say, harassing everyone who has my skill set and driving them out of town.

No, it wouldn't.  However, replacement workers can't magically isolate themselves from the factory town worker population they're replacing, anymore than a factory can or should isolate itself from the town in which it locates itself.  It doesn't justify violence, but a person doesn't have a right to be liked.

In the case of corporate cartels, there's usually a much bigger profit margin to be made by undercutting a cartel than there is by undercutting a union worker, I would think.

What difference does it make?  Why should people who want to work be blocked out of the market?

In purely economic terms, they shouldn't.  In terms of the impact of business on the everyday lives of people... well, if we let business play all their cards, we should let workers do the same.

Like I said, we basically agree - we just have different biases, I suppose.  I'm not entirely comfortable defending unions, but I'm also not entirely comfortable condemning them either.  It would be so much easier if there we could simply get rid of excession gov't force and see what happens. :-)

[Fisticuffs]

It's not a "problem" - it's a crime committed by or at the instigation of the trade union - a direct violation of the rights of the employers and would-be employees. Such anti-libertarian harassment - taken to whatever lengths, up to and including murder, the law will let them get away with - is standard trade union policy and, along with the threat of breach of contract (strikes), their main weapon.

Obviously, it's just as wrong when a union uses violence as when an employer does.

However, I'm curious - do you consider picketting and protest a form of harrassment (say, if it is occuring adjacent to, but not on, the business's property)?

Yeah, that's wrong, but that's not a complaint against unions so much as gov't interference.

But those laws come about through union pressure too - often by threatening the government with mass violence if they don't give them the licence to breach contracts and commit collective crimes.

As if corporations don't pressure gov't to take actions that give them a one-up on others.

In a free market companies wouldn't try to prevent people from joining trades unions (except in breach of agreements previously entered into); they'd just prefer not to employ union members. So union wage rates would end up lower.

That makes sense to me - in a free market, everybody has an incentive to be honest and forthright with each other, and that tends to deter situations which cause people to collectivize.  

Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

Because their pay will be higher if they do more.

Oh, ok, I agree - people should not be prevented by unions from doing as much as they want to.  However, I don't think it always follows that pay is higher when you do more.  The market is not always that exact.

Take away the force and forming a conventional trade union becomes a complete waste of time.

Perhaps now that is true - but it wasn't true in the 19th century, when business regularly employed force to oppress workers.

But anyway, I agree with you both - ideally, unions should not be neccessary.  At best, they are a costly form of "employment insurance", and at worst, they are criminal.  I was just pondering whether, in some instances, this form of insurance might be necessary.  In the highly developed economy in which we now live, they probably aren't necessary nearly as often as they're found.

[Paul Birch]

I'm curious - do you consider picketting and protest a form of harrassment (say, if it is occuring adjacent to, but not on, the business's property)?

The way unions tend to do it, yes. Forcibly preventing people from entering a firm's premises until they've been harranged by pickets is a criminal violation of their freedom of movement. Likewise, shouting and waving fists at them is a criminal assault.

Holding up placards and handing out leaflets would be okay - but unions go far beyond that.

But those laws come about through union pressure too - often by threatening the government with mass violence if they don't give them the licence to breach contracts and commit collective crimes.

As if corporations don't pressure gov't to take actions that give them a one-up on others.

So what? As you pointed out yourself, it's wrong whoever does it. In any case, the vast majority of firms do not attempt to coerce anyone. By contrast, practically every trade union does - coercion is their raison d'être.

Economically speaking, why should they do more than the minimum possible for their pay?

Because their pay will be higher if they do more.

Oh, ok, I agree - people should not be prevented by unions from doing as much as they want to.  However, I don't think it always follows that pay is higher when you do more.  The market is not always that exact.

The correspondence may not be perfect, but in a free market it's pretty close. And it's certain that a policy of doing the least you can get away with must mean lower pay in the long term - in any economy.

Take away the force and forming a conventional trade union becomes a complete waste of time.

Perhaps now that is true - but it wasn't true in the 19th century, when business regularly employed force to oppress workers.

The empirical evidence is that trades unions have never systematically profited their members in any competitive industry, and that competitive industries have never systematically oppressed employees, socialist lies notwithstanding. Businesses have occasionally employed force to defend themselves against union violence, threats or breach of contract - or, less frequently and with less clear justification, to get around oppressive laws (such as those prohibiting them from sacking strikers).

[Fisticuffs]

So what? As you pointed out yourself, it's wrong whoever does it.

Right, so we're just arguing about which group we think is sexier.

The empirical evidence is that trades unions have never systematically profited their members in any competitive industry, and that competitive industries have never systematically oppressed employees, socialist lies notwithstanding.

The keyword there being "competitive", I take it, as oppressive businesses have tended to be coercive monopolies.  Those who have employed force to oppress workers were equally likely to use force to limit competition.  I'll buy that as a general rule.

Businesses have occasionally employed force to defend themselves against union violence, threats or breach of contract - or, less frequently and with less clear justification, to get around oppressive laws (such as those prohibiting them from sacking strikers).

But, as you say, it's wrong no matter what group employs force.  The cool thing about banning force is that reality gets to be the arbiter of this debate, rather than debate skills :-)

[Paul Birch]

Right, so we're just arguing about which group we think is sexier.

Not quite. A firm is essentially a device for creating general economic benefit through voluntary trade - if it becomes a gang supported by oppressive laws, that's a distortion of its normal role. By contrast, a trade union is essentially a device for creating net economic loss through coercion - if it respected property rights and eschewed coercion it would lose its point. I suppose a trade union could, in theory, metamorphose into a combination of professional society, voluntary accreditation agency and employment agency, but this would be so different from todays' unions that it is doubtful whether the label would still be appropriate.

The empirical evidence is that trades unions have never systematically profited their members in any competitive industry, and that competitive industries have never systematically oppressed employees, socialist lies notwithstanding.

The keyword there being "competitive", I take it, as oppressive businesses have tended to be coercive monopolies.  Those who have employed force to oppress workers were equally likely to use force to limit competition.  I'll buy that as a general rule.

All right, but it's really the other way round. The political powers may impose oppressive laws and set up their own organisations, which may then oppress people; but even if they have an economic function, they do not arise out of the market as such. As a rule, those employed in such political creations are favoured, not oppressed (this is the domain of the public sector union); it is the rest of society, the consumers and capitalists, whom they tend to oppress. By contrast, market firms often lobby government for special privileges, but they don't use outright violence; nor can they themselves directly oppress employees, since no one has to work for them. They can oppress customers, if they are granted a regulatory monopoly.

But, as you say, it's wrong no matter what group employs force.

It's wrong to use force in violation of other people's rights or in breach of one's own agreements. It is not, in general, wrong to use force defensively.

[Fisticuffs]

A firm is essentially a device for creating general economic benefit through voluntary trade

See, Paul, no offense intended, but this is what I find really hard to stomach about your politics, as much as I've seen.  What is "general economic benefit"?  The idea is nebulous, subjective, and way too theoretical.

The prime advantage of a "laissez faire" economic and political system is that you and I don't have to decide what policy provides the greatest "general economic benefit" - we can let everybody decide for themselves via market forces.  Phrases like "general economic benefit", when used to promote political measures (such as confering personhood upon a group of investors' collective assets), are not good arguments IMHO.

[Paul Birch]

A firm is essentially a device for creating general economic benefit through voluntary trade

See, Paul, no offense intended, but this is what I find really hard to stomach about your politics, as much as I've seen.  What is "general economic benefit"?  The idea is nebulous, subjective, and way too theoretical.

It's not politics; it's basic economics. An economic benefit to a person is anything that on balance that person prefers. A general economic benefit is anything that on balance everyone concerned prefers - what is also known as a Pareto improvement and which results from voluntary trade in the absence of significant negative externalities. A particular economic benefit is one that is preferred only by particular persons. In a more restrictive sense, "economic" may also be contrasted with "political", the former being purely voluntary, the latter involving force.

For some reason you seem unwilling to grasp the fact that economic value is essentially subjective - that whatever people like is by definition an economic good to those people. Instead you seem trapped in some Marxist timewarp that fundamentally misrepresents what economic activity is all about. Voluntary trade benefits all parties to the trade (if it didn't they wouldn't take part); a firm is simply an arrangement through which many parties voluntarily trade. Those parties include shareholders, bondholders, officers, managers, employees and customers; some of those parties may themselves be firms, with a spreading web of beneficiaries.

[Fisticuffs]

For some reason you seem unwilling to grasp the fact that economic value is essentially subjective - that whatever people like is by definition an economic good to those people.

No, I completely grasp its subjective nature.  It is precisely because it is subjective, however, that I question it's utility in arbitrarily predicting outcomes.  Perhaps in a free market, unions would be obsolete, perhaps not - in either case, the market will determine the most ideal system, based on general economic benefit.  The specific outcome, however, is not one for which I'm prepared to vouch - nor do I really think such prediction is necessary.

It seems to me to be much more incumbent upon a libertarian to define the ideal legal structure in which such a free market can operate.  Only in that respect was I concerned about the libertarian position on unions.

Voluntary trade benefits all parties to the trade (if it didn't they wouldn't take part); a firm is simply an arrangement through which many parties voluntarily trade. Those parties include shareholders, bondholders, officers, managers, employees and customers; some of those parties may themselves be firms, with a spreading web of beneficiaries.

My argument is not with corporations or firms as arrangements, but as legal entities who themselves are on the same level as individuals.  As long as no legal "magic" (such as the particular flavor of corporate personhood we have in the U.S.) is invoked to protect corporations from fully compensating victims, then I've no problem with it.  As long as we're making arbitrary predictions, I just think that society is better served with a legal system that views individuals as the actors in society (and therefore the responsible parties), not collectives.  Individuals act through collective arrangements like corporations, but the responsible party must be one or more individuals - the arrangement is not, itself, the actor.

[Paul Birch]

For some reason you seem unwilling to grasp the fact that economic value is essentially subjective - that whatever people like is by definition an economic good to those people.

No, I completely grasp its subjective nature.  It is precisely because it is subjective, however, that I question it's utility in arbitrarily predicting outcomes.

Even if a thing is subjective, its operation can still be objectively observed, measured and predicted. We know objectively, to a considerable degree of certainty, how an ensemble of people will behave in various situations. For example, give a child the choice of eating faeces or ice-cream and we can predict with almost total certainty that it will choose the ice-cream, even though the preference is entirely subjective.

Perhaps in a free market, unions would be obsolete, perhaps not - in either case, the market will determine the most ideal system, based on general economic benefit.

You keep missing the point: the fundamental nature of a trade union, as they are presently constituted, is coercive and criminally destructive of economic value, antipathetic to a free market, intended to harm employers' economic interests through violence and deliberate contractual breach; if such a trade union is permitted to operate unpunished, we haven't got a free market. By contrast, the fundamental purpose of a firm - to benefit the parties to its activities - is fully compatible with a free market; all one needs to add is a legal restraint on certain kinds of negative externalities, which a firm is not intrinsically interested in one way or the other.

It seems to me to be much more incumbent upon a libertarian to define the ideal legal structure in which such a free market can operate.  Only in that respect was I concerned about the libertarian position on unions.

The legal position should be that it is a conspiracy unlawfully to coerce and consequently must pay for each and every tort or contractual breach it commits or causes to be committed. Again, as with clubs, firms, criminal gangs or any other collective arrangement, how a union distributes its liabilities - or the liabilities of members or agents acting on its behalf - is nobody else's business so long as those liabilities are met.

As for your absurd and obdurate prejudice against collectives: a collective comes into existence whenever a group of people makes an agreement to associate. This is a fundamental freedom, without which society would be inconceivable. It is not something that the law ever could or should prevent; indeed, for the law to refuse to recognise the existence of such an association and to treat the people concerned with it purely as atomistic individuals would be a foolish fantasy (a dishonest fabrication or fiction); to recognise the association as a legal entity and treat it accordingly is simply to accept the plain unvarnished truth, and to respect the choice of those people who choose so to associate. The standard and ancient word for such a legal entity is "person" - what are commonly called "individuals" (properly, human beings) are a subset of the class of persons. Calling a firm a person is factually accurate.