Again with your strawman, part of a pattern of extremely bad faith responses to me. I never once said that in a free market, a company can't sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union. I even said that earlier. The laws that currently prevent this should be eliminated, as well as the laws that prevent companies from refusing to negotiate with unions, and prevent them from firing workers who unionize and/or strike.
>But you cannot point to the worst actions of unions without - to use your earlier term - juxtaposing it with the worst actions of businesses.
Your characterization of the general behaviour of unions compared to businesses is disingenuous. It's a lie invented by unions and their beneficiaries to deceive the public.
Union workers commonly beat and murdered "scabs" who crossed their picket lines, which resulted in replacement workers being intimidated into not crossing those lines. The hiring of private security (e.g. the Pinkertons) was primarily in response to the threat of violent actions like this by unions, and the violent confrontations that did occur were primarily because unionized workers refused to desist from threatening replacement workers and violating the rights of the property owner to their own company premises by trespassing and blockading it.
That was the general reality of the late 19th century, and not your out-of-context anecdotes that you trot out to pull at heart strings.
And the violent and illegal actions of unions were justified by their supporters, who used the same class-warfare narrative and false characterizations you're trotting out now to justify the current bevy of anti-contract-freedom-laws.
>You know that's a rather odd question, right? Of course unions can be more powerful if there are laws to support the unions.
You didn't even answer the question. You responded to a strawman. I asked if you think unions are more powerful now than they were in the late 19th century when contract liberty was less restricted by labor laws.
What you don't want to plainly admit to is that a return to a free market would greatly reduce the power of unions.
>Unionization rates were higher before Taft-Hartley was passed.
Changing the subject. I didn't ask about Taft-Hartley. I asked about the late 1800s, before drastic interference by labor laws to limit contract freedom, and how unionization rates compared then to now. I'm not suggesting we keep Taft-Hartley. I'm suggesting repealing all of the labor laws instituted since the 1880s relating to how companies and unions may interact.
Your evasive propagandizing is quite typical any time the subject becomes unions and their dependency on the government limiting the contract liberty of employers.
Comments
Again with your strawman, part of a pattern of extremely bad faith responses to me. I never once said that in a free market, a company can't sign a private contract with a union saying that the company will only hire members of the union. I even said that earlier. The laws that currently prevent this should be eliminated, as well as the laws that prevent companies from refusing to negotiate with unions, and prevent them from firing workers who unionize and/or strike.
Your characterization of the general behaviour of unions compared to businesses is disingenuous. It's a lie invented by unions and their beneficiaries to deceive the public.
Union workers commonly beat and murdered "scabs" who crossed their picket lines, which resulted in replacement workers being intimidated into not crossing those lines. The hiring of private security (e.g. the Pinkertons) was primarily in response to the threat of violent actions like this by unions, and the violent confrontations that did occur were primarily because unionized workers refused to desist from threatening replacement workers and violating the rights of the property owner to their own company premises by trespassing and blockading it.
That was the general reality of the late 19th century, and not your out-of-context anecdotes that you trot out to pull at heart strings.
And the violent and illegal actions of unions were justified by their supporters, who used the same class-warfare narrative and false characterizations you're trotting out now to justify the current bevy of anti-contract-freedom-laws.
You didn't even answer the question. You responded to a strawman. I asked if you think unions are more powerful now than they were in the late 19th century when contract liberty was less restricted by labor laws.
What you don't want to plainly admit to is that a return to a free market would greatly reduce the power of unions.
Changing the subject. I didn't ask about Taft-Hartley. I asked about the late 1800s, before drastic interference by labor laws to limit contract freedom, and how unionization rates compared then to now. I'm not suggesting we keep Taft-Hartley. I'm suggesting repealing all of the labor laws instituted since the 1880s relating to how companies and unions may interact.
Your evasive propagandizing is quite typical any time the subject becomes unions and their dependency on the government limiting the contract liberty of employers.