via Connor D. Wolf at the Daily Caller:
Former governor of New Mexico and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson is criticizing policies that unfairly benefit labor unions, like forcing workers to be members when they may not want to be.
While many on the right warn of laws that benefit unions, others on the left argue unions must be strengthened because they protect workers and keep wages and benefits at fair levels. With some version of the law already in 24 states and several others currently considering it, right-to-work has become the main issue in the debate. The policy outlaws forced union membership as a condition of employment. Johnson argues it’s not just a good policy, it’s an area conservatives and libertarians can come together on.
“I think it does send an important message and along with that it saves people money,” Johnson told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Same product, same service at a lower price. You know, that’s a good formula.”
Recalling his former construction company, Johnson argued it would have been much more difficult to operate his business if all his employees were required to be in a union.
“People that belong to the union, I found, were absolutely the best there were, they were the best employees, the best workers I have ever seen,” Johnson noted. “But I also had union members that were the worse employees that I have ever seen or ever interacted with.”
“I had to fire or get rid of the worst and I was able to reward the best,” Johnson continued. “If I was a union shop I would have had to except both as equals and that’s not real, that’s not the real world. I want to be able to reward the best and I want to be able to get rid of the worst.”
Johnson also argued that unions play a major role in out of control government spending, an issue that many on the right, including both conservatives and libertarians, are concerned about.
Read the rest of the article at dailycaller.com.
“It’s between the union and the business, not government.”
How about when the government is already in the situation forcing the union on the business?
People are taking this as being about state-level right-to-work, but the overarching context in the federal law that forces unionization on an employer based on a 50% vote, regardless of RTW. Say what you want about the hypothetical role unions might play in a voluntary-contract free-market system, but that’s not the context of the current debate. I understand and sympathize with the libertarian argument that it’s violating freedom of contract, but it’s not that cut and dry. The other way to look at it, is the states being able to undo some of the illegitimate privileges and powers given to the unions by federal law.
Say there’s a federal law that says A and B *must* have some sort of contract, and that C can also be forced to be a party to it. That federal law also says states can get rid of the part that requires C to give money to B, leaving just the mandatory A-B relationship. I don’t see that it’s per se unlibertarian to support the state govt exercising that option or, put another way, I don’t see the libertarian case for preserving the status quo.
So I suppose the question is: do current employer-union contracts under the National Labor Relations Act, qualify as voluntary arrangements by libertarian standards? Or are they unjust federal impositions that employers and employees should be defended against?
Right to work is BS. If a business and a group of workers agree that union membership is a requirement for employment, then no one should try to stop it. It’s between the union and the business, not government.
“I’m sorry, you want to come into my factory and tell me that I am not allowed to sign a union shop contract with my employees? When I want to do that? This is MY factory. You must be a Communist!”
Goddammit! Johnson has been around the LP and/or libertarian movement for HOW long and nobody has explained to him that “right to work” is anti-libertarian bullshit yet?