Strangulation by Union
A Commentary by John Stossel
The Chicago teachers strike is over, but the public didn't win. Schools will still transfer bad teachers to other schools because it's nearly impossible to fire them. When bad teachers go from school to school, principals call it "the dance of the lemons." It would be funny if those teachers didn't slowly wreck children's lives.
The basic issue is: Who decides how to manage a workplace? Unions say it's good that they protect American workers from arbitrary dismissal and make sure everyone is treated equally.
But it's not good.
Rules that "protect" government workers from arbitrary dismissal and require everyone be treated equally are bad for taxpayers and "customers" -- and even union workers themselves.
But this is not intuitive. Union workers certainly have no clue about it.
At a union rally, I asked union workers if it bothered them that slackers are paid as much as good workers. The activists actually said, "There is no slacker," and that union rules mean less productive colleagues are helped, "brought up to speed."
C'mon, I asked, aren't there some workers who are just lazy, who drag the enterprise down?
"No!" they told me.
The union activists were also quick to say that unions built the middle class, that without unions, greedy bosses would lead a "race to the bottom" and pay workers next to nothing. "There would be no weekend, or eight-hour day!" they told me. "All that came from unions!"
Workers' lives improved in America because of free enterprise, not because of union rules. Union contracts helped workers for a while, but then they hurt -- even union workers -- because the rigid rules prevent flexibility in response to new market conditions. They slow growth. And growth -- increasing productivity, which leads to higher wages and new opportunities -- is what is best for workers.
In 1914, Henry Ford doubled his employees' wages to $5 a day and cut their workday to eight hours. He then hired more people. He didn't do this out of benevolence. As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations," "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." It was in Ford's interest to increase his company's profits, and to do that he needed to attract the best workers he could find. When companies compete for workers, they get higher wages and better working conditions. Ford shortened the workday to better compete. Then GM and Chrysler matched Ford's deal to keep up. Workers won.
All without a union. It wasn't until 30 years later that the UAW appeared and unionized the workers. Union membership gave them good benefits for a while, but then growth slowed and stopped. That sure didn't help workers. Consider what happened at GM. Over the past 20 years, much-less-unionized Toyota created 15,000 jobs -- in America, not in Japan. Over that same period, GM lost 400,000 American jobs. One reason GM shrank was union rules. How's that good for workers?
Of course workers have a right to unionize -- it's part of freedom of association. But to be effective, that right needs a free-market environment. That means no compulsory membership -- free association, not forced association. Second, enterprise must be truly free and competitive, which means no privilege or favoritism from government -- no bailouts and crony capitalism.
When enterprise is competitive, workers acquire more bargaining power because multiple employers bid for their services. Also, self-employment is a real option because no government barriers to entry prevent it (like licensing, zoning orcomplicated taxes and rules). As the great economics writer Henry Hazlitt pointed out, free unions can play a constructive role when they have to attract members by offering valuable services, such as information on the latest market conditions. But the market must be free in all respects.
Today, workers should know the downside of unionizing. It's not just the cost of their union dues. It's the opportunities lost in union shops because the rules limit entrepreneurs' ability to change, adapt and grow. It's that freedom -- free enterprise -- that gives America and workers the power to prosper.
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed."
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary
See Other Commentary by John Stossel
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.