But since you like the free market so much, isn't unionization part of a free market? Aren't strikes a perfectly valid free market way to achieve the goals of the members of the union? Or is a collection of workers, organized into a union, not part of the same free market as a collection of owners, organized into a company which protects them from personal liability claims?
And therefore aren't laws preventing certain labor actions, like Taft–Hartley's prohibitions on certain types of strikes, also a piece of anti-free-market legislation?
I have no problem with organized labor as long as everyone has a free choices. Where things get sticky is when government chooses winners.
I disagree with the argument that teachers should get paid as much as software developers because some view them as having more worth to society. The market should decide what someone is worth.
The market isn't great and sometimes sucks big timetime, but it beats the ivory tower.
Ah, but the free market can prevent people from having choices. Suppose a union demands a union shop. That of course prevents workers in the shop from having a choice to not be in the union. Now suppose one person in the shop decides to not be in the union, and the other 150 people in the shop go on strike, to demand that that person be fired.
Does the single non-union person have the free choice to work in a shop without being in a union? Do the other 150 people have the free choice to demand, as part of their work contract, a closed shop? Do the union members have the free choice to strike, should a non-union employee be working there?
In so-called 'right-to-work' states, the answer is that employees do NOT have the ability to require a union shop, and do NOT have the right to strike in that case. No one in those states has the ability to choose to work in a union shop, or even to buy from a union shop instead of a open shop.
Closed shops can appear in a free market. Laws prevent closed shops. The government has "chosen" the winner, and done so in favor of non-union businesses.
Are you a big enough fan of the free market that you want to take away existing prohibitions on union power?
For the matter, the free market allows child labor. It's those silly labor laws which prevent people from having the choice to send their children to work in the fields and bring in some money. Indeed, anti-truancy laws say that we don't even have the choice of letting the children stay home during the day.
Are you a big enough fan of the free market that you want to take away existing prohibitions on child labor?
>>Are you a big enough fan of the free market that you want to take away existing prohibitions on child labor?
No. In fact I'm voting for Obama because I think we're at risk of losing the middle class.
I wrote what I did because I don't think comparing public teachers to private sector jobs is an apples to oranges comparison, and partly because I like to play the devil's advocate ;)
Right. You're one of the people who claim to like the naive simplicity of the free market but have no idea how inhumane the free market actually is, and when asked to justify your beliefs you pull away and yell "psyche!".
But since you like the free market so much, isn't unionization part of a free market? Aren't strikes a perfectly valid free market way to achieve the goals of the members of the union? Or is a collection of workers, organized into a union, not part of the same free market as a collection of owners, organized into a company which protects them from personal liability claims?
And therefore aren't laws preventing certain labor actions, like Taft–Hartley's prohibitions on certain types of strikes, also a piece of anti-free-market legislation?