Banner
Without the Boats and Eye Patches PDF Print E-mail
Money, Love, Desire - The Good of Affluence
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 06 September 2011 07:01

Yesterday was Labor Day, and millions of Americans celebrated it with chips and burgers, grateful for the three-day weekend, and with only a dim awareness of what the difference between Labor Day and Memorial Day might be. In short, Labor Day for most has been scrubbed free of all commie toxins, and is now perfectly safe for your family to enjoy. More background here.

Someone might wonder what's wrong with celebrating work, or the work ethic, or a culture of hard work? How is that a commie toxin? The answer is nothing, and it is not a commie toxin. Keep right on.

Pressed on the point, someone might say that we need to celebrate organized labor. Okay, I'll bite. Organized to do what? Organized by whom? Organizing to what result?

The answer is that collective bargaining, unlike labor or work, is not part of the creation mandate. Organized labor is organized to take control of an asset away from its rightful owners without paying for it. Organized labor is organization of property by those who don't own it. Organized labor, by driving up the costs of production through coercive means, destroys industries. Organized labor is piracy without the boats and eye patches. Why would anybody want to celebrate organized labor?

Good hard work, fine. Organized labor, not so much.

However you describe it, organized labor wants to force all workers at a particular point of production to join the union, whether they want to join or not. They want to make membership in the union a condition of employment. They want to extract dues by force of law, making those dues a kind of tax. They want the right to walk off a job they did not create, and simultaneously keep that job off limits for others by harassing any "scab" who desires to replace the absent workers. In short, organized labor is organized to do unrighteousness.

Take away ungodly coercion -- the coercion of business owners and other workers alike -- and you have taken away the whole enterprise. If all the goals of unions are so lofty and noble, why can they not be accomplished by peaceful and non-coercive means?

We live in a fallen world, and so coercion is sometimes necessary (and when it is, it is authorized by Scripture). I should not feel bad that our laws "coerce" potential thieves, rapists, and murderers. In effect, organized coercion like this is legitimate because it is taking a stand against free lance coercion, against anarchistic coercion. Lawful coercion is bounded and defined by the law of God. Unlawful coercion likes to justify itself in accordance with what it can get away with. So far unions have been getting away with a lot. Why has a phrase like the "prosperity of Detroit" become a laughing matter?

Someone might ask then if it is a sin to belong to a union. Well, no, it is not a sin to be coerced, any more than it is a sin to be captured by pirates. But I would be willing to say that it is a sin to organize a union. It is wrong to celebrate it.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Monday, 11 June 2012 15:28
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Robert Seward  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 8:50 am
Organized labor is also responsible for most of the early work safety laws. One hundred years ago this event got legislators to accede to union demands for safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

Are you honestly saying that it is acceptable for fire exits to be blocked? That is how labor finally got its foot in the door: by playing on public opinion of the Trianle shirtwaist Fire and the greed of the owners and FDR got the first work safety laws passed.

Since conservative Christians seem to be unable or unwilling to demand workplace safety, liberal Christians using Deuteronomy 22:8 and Leviticus 14:34-55 as justification have done so, using unions, state legislatures and the feds to do so.

You know that both political parties on the national level are run by evil men and women. That is a given.

The question I have for you is this: Does the Bible mandate a certain level of public health and safety for personal property which is to be enforced by the government? Obviously, I believe that it does and I have quoted the Scriptures for my support. If you think that the Bible does not require this, then the argument is over. Just remember, there are a lot of Conservative Christians in West Virginia who favor safety laws and regulations because they want their miner husbands to come home that night.
Eric F. Langborgh  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:03 am
Any society with a robust understanding and respect for property rights would prosecute those who place others unwillingly in harm's way, who endanger others. Because these others, workers in this instance, have property in themselves. You are liable for creating conditions that unknowingly bring harm on others. But the solution is not to make legal what would be a crime (i.e. organized plunder), but litigation and the emergence of common law. And free market competition is ultimately the most effective remedy. Who wants to work for an unsavory employer when better ones are available? Who will continue to buy the products and services of a company of such ill repute? I venture that more than 90% of problems would be and can be solved in these ways. And for whatever remains, the solution still doesn't require the licensing of organized thugs.
Robert Seward  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:14 am
Do you honestly care about the working conditions in the factories that your clothes are made in or do you look at the cheapest price? Everyone is interested in themselves. That is Econ 202. Safety laws cut into profit. Bible requirements of Sabbath keeping cut into profit.
Eric F. Langborgh  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:20 am
The fact that so many push for coercive laws is proof that so many care also for working conditions. In fact, that so much effort is put into lobbying government takes the wind out of more organic solutions arising via the market. (If the state is protecting us, we let down our guard. People act more recklessly when they assume everything is vetted by the monopoly power that is government. Likewise, businesses begin focusing on doing the minimum necessary to satisfy OSHA, EPA, etc. when true market forces would actually encourage them ultimately to do so much more.) We see it all over the globe throughout history. As peoples begin to prosper beyond subsistence, they are then able to put time, energy and wealth into making a better environment for themselves and others.
Eric F. Langborgh  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:24 am
Safety laws cut into profit.
So does fewer customers. So does lesser quality employees, when better qualified ones work for and benefit competing employers who make better working conditions for them. That's Econ 401.
Matt Weber  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:28 am
Why would anybody want to celebrate organized labor?

I dunno...maybe they're enjoying their vacation days, or grateful for their sick days, or happy that they have all five fingers, or a weekend which to extend by a day.

Why don't libertarians get it? Why don't they understand what motivates normal people?
Eric F. Langborgh  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:47 am
Normal people are motivated in favor of legal piracy and for driving up the costs of production through coercive means and destroying industries? Normal people oppose the free association of individuals to their mutual benefit? Hmmm....
Robert Seward  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:46 am
Quote:
Why don't libertarians get it? Why don't they understand what motivates normal people?


This is a pejorative sentence. By definition, anyone who disagrees with your perspective of normalcy must therefore be abnormal.
Phillip Harrison  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:05 am
Quote:
Take away ungodly coercion -- the coercion of business owners and other workers alike -- and you have taken away the whole enterprise. If all the goals of unions are so lofty and noble, why can they not be accomplished by peaceful and non-coercive means?



None of the benefits that have resulted from collective bargaining change the truth of this statement. Speaking as a unionized nuclear power plant worker who has partaken of these benefits, this is still something that I have struggled to reconcile in my mind.
Matt Weber  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:08 pm
Normal people are motivated in favor of legal piracy and for driving up the costs of production through coercive means and destroying industries? Normal people oppose the free association of individuals to their mutual benefit?

Apparently...who exactly do you think makes up the majority of labor unions? Regular working joes. The kind of people who vote Republican and go hunting. It's nice that libertarians side with super-rich globalists over their next-door neighbors.

But what industries have been killed by labor unions? The auto industry is the best example I can think of, and there were a lot of other things going on there. Free trade, on the other hand, has slain industries left and right--or at least kicked them offshore. But there, the silence from the libertarians is deafening (actually they aren't silent; they're cheerleading for more and more free trade).

And Philip Harrison is right. I'll take libertarians seriously on labor unions when they start agitating against the 40 hour workweek, against overtime pay, sick leave, maternity leave, holidays off...these are all benefits brought to us by the odious labor unions, and you don't get to just fire up the Magic Market Counterfactual machine and assume they would have all developed independently of labor influence.

Why do I feel like it's 1910 again? The victory of capital over labor is almost total at this point--see Buchanan's recent column--but apparently the destitute unions are the real threat.
Douglas Wilson  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:55 pm
Matt, not only are the unions destitute, so is Detroit.
Robert Seward  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:54 pm
Quote:
so is Detroit


So is western North Carolina and southern Alabama. My cousins used to have good jobs. NAFTA came in. Jobs went away.
Phillip Harrison  Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:22 pm
My point was probably not articulated very well. In principle, I completely agree with this article, and this has always been my viewpoint. But when you work for a corporation as large as the one I work for, I sometimes wonder if the union is maybe a necessary evil. I am not adamant on this point and am here to learn.
Richard  - A "Normal" person perspective  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:00 am
When I used to work construction, all the workers were paid in cash (meaning we had to file as self-employed), the holiday/sick day policy was "if you don't work, you don't get paid" (Incidentally we did all take off for Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. We just didn't get paid for those days), and there was no overtime pay, insurance, retirement, etc. Never once did any of us workers think, "Hey, in addition to our salary, our employer should also pay us for days we do no work, and should provide us with insurance." Rather it was the expectation that everyone would save their money for days they wanted off from work. Our employer wasn't getting paid when we weren't working. Why should we? The expectation was also that if we wanted insurance we should buy it ourselves. I personally did buy insurance for myself and my family. Some didn't. It was a personal choice.

I'm just pointing this all out to show that the average "normal" person does not necessarily think that he has a right to get his hand into his employer's pocket beyond his agreed upon hourly wage. If anyone ever became dissatisfied with the arrangement, he was welcome to find work elsewhere.

Also, as an aside, when folks from OSHA were in the neighborhood the response wasn't to cheer for our saviors who were coming to protect us from poor working conditions. Our reaction was to roll our eyes and talk about the fathead bureaucrats who made it harder for us to get our jobs done in a timely manner.
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:46 am
Robert Seward, just a few quotes from your Wikipedia article to give clarity to the truth of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. You imply (like many other union protagonists) that the doors were intentionally blocked by the company owners so that employees would die. You might wish to read the article in it's entirety yourself.

"...the door to the Washington Place stairway was locked to prevent theft by the workers; the locked doors allowed managers to check the women's purses.[15] The foreman who held the stairway door key had already escaped by another route."

"...the prosecution had failed to prove that the owners knew the exit doors were locked at the time in question. The jury acquitted the two men..."

"Rose Schneiderman,a prominent socialist and union activist, gave a speech at the memorial meeting held in the Metropolitan Opera House on April 2, 1911, to an audience largely made up of the members of the Women's Trade Union League. She used the fire as an argument for factory workers to organize:"

Phillip Harrison  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:09 am
I think that Richard made some excellent points, well worth considering. I'm trying to gain a Biblical perspective on this, regardless of whether or not I have been the recipient of union-negotiated benefits. I would also like to know if working for a "system" (I. E., a large corporation)as opposed to a flesh-and-blood employer makes any difference in this argument.
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12 am
Corporations never tithe.
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:48 am
And to follow up, Robert also said,

"...conservative Christians seem to be unable or unwilling to demand workplace safety..."

Do you have a source for this statement?
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16 am
That is why I used the word seem in the sentence. With the exception of mineworkers in W. Virginia, I have never seen a conservative ever bring up the issue of the Civil Magistrate's responsibility to oversee workplace safety.
Matt Weber  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:18 am
Detroit is indeed destitute. If the libertarian Theory of Union Strangulation held, the weakening of the UAW should mean that Detroit will be roaring back to life anytime now. In fact, manufacturing should be at an all-time high, given that union participation is at an all-time low.

In fact, what we see is that the height of the unions coincided with the golden age of the postwar era, and the decline of the unions went along with the end of that age. I don't envy the working class these days.
Bill Banting  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:52 am
I can understand the dislike of union "excesses" like mandatory membership and attacks on scabs. But the idea that organized labor and collective bargaining are inherently bad? Give me a break. Why is it bad for workers to organize in order to get the best possible price for their only capital -- their labor? After all, by your logic, an employer is always free to hire someone else if they so choose.

Quote:
Organized labor is organized to take control of an asset away from its rightful owners without paying for it. Organized labor is organization of property by those who don't own it. Organized labor, by driving up the costs of production through coercive means, destroys industries. Organized labor is piracy without the boats and eye patches.

Good hard work, fine. Organized labor, not so much.


Capitalists are organized to take control of an asset -- labor -- away from its rightful owners without paying for it. Capitalism is organization of human time and energy by those who don't own it. Capitalism, by driving down wages through coercive means, destroys lives of working men and women. Capitalism is slavery without the whips and chains.

Balanced Capitalism, fine. All power in the hands of those who happen to own capital, not so much.


See, I can make extreme handwavy generalizations too. :)

Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:33 am
Quote:
labor -- away from its rightful owners without paying for it.


No. It is to pay as little as they can get away with.
Bill Banting  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:43 am
Quote:
No. It is to pay as little as they can get away with.


Well, of course. And that's why unions exist -- to get paid as much as they can get away with.

Why is it considered "legitimate market forces" on one hand, but "coercion" and "theft" on the other?
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16 am
I do not believe the owners expected a fire in the first place. That is not the point. The point is that the Bible requires safety laws. Conservative American Christians seem to refuse to acknowledge that. Liberal Christians do acknowledge this. Despite liberal theological problems, God is the God of both.



I didn't get my information from wikipedia. I was taught about the fire and its significance when I was a university student.
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03 pm
Robert, you are the one who posted the Wikipedia link (As a point however, Wikipedia is just as reliable a source as any university professor. In other words, neither is infallible). Do you dispute the accuracy of the Wikipedia account which you posted?

As to Biblical safety laws, please give some scripture reference and cite at least one example of Conservative American Christians being against safety laws. You imply that fire safety laws were objected to by said Christians and that fire safety laws would not have come into effect without unions. I submit that there is actually no cause and effect here. The fire safety laws would have been enacted without any union input because of regular 'non-union' public pressure.
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:26 pm
My scriptural references are at the top of the page. I will track down some documentation of opposition. I should have no trouble finding it when I peruse the NY Times from that era. I live in Moscow ID and have access to the back issues of the Times and Time magazine and Newsweek
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31 am
I had just left this website and went to you tube for something unrelated to this discussion and this video was on the front page. Literally, this fell in my lap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tY1gk6J6zc&feature=grec_index
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35 pm
Robert, I've watched your youtube video and did not find it at all disturbing. My father was born in 1912 and Mother in 1916. My mother used to walk 1 mile every morning before school to a neighboring farm for the daily pail of milk before going to school. She was six years old! It did not kill her. My Dad lived and worked on the Indiana farm of his Grandparents during the depression. During this time period, life was tough, families were strong, and crime was minimal except in parts of big cities. May parents referred to these as "the good ole days". Today my jr. high and high school students (I teach in the public school in CA) spend their time texting, watching music videos, doing drugs and engaging in sexual activities instead of learning how to work hard. Heaven help them when the welfare checks go away.

I would eagerly support a reform of child welfare laws to allow children 12 and older to work gainfully at sub-minimum wage for two or three hours per day after school. I know a great many needy children who would jump at the chance to work; even in a mine, how exciting! Why does working in a mine become a wonderful job after a child turns 18 but is heartbreaking prior to that?
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:23 pm
Quote:
Robert, I've watched your youtube video and did not find it at all disturbing.


I think you are in the minority on this one.

Before you start touting the Good Old Days and family values, I should mention that I had a job archiving the divorce records for Latah County, Idaho from 1920 until 1946. In the twenties, there were about 300 applications for divorce. In the thirties that number had more than doubled and by the forties, the numbers had tripled. As Billy Joel put it, "The good old days weren't always good" Back then the county had less than forty thousand.

Now if you are advocating formal apprenticeship programs, well and good. I certainly don't have a problem with that. Oh wait a minute, a lot of unions traditionally ran apprenticeship programs! :-)

Despite my smart alecky crack, unions have historically filled the space needed for quality control regarding apprenticeships. There has to be some sort of certification process, The certifying agency has to have professional credibility. For blue collar work, the Union was able to set standards that were enforceable and definable. This is not just a professional issue, it is a legal one. Since we are talking about young people who will not be attending university, the state would have to set the standards for the certification. Think lawsuits if something goes wrong.
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:20 pm
Robert, everyone knows "the good olda days weren't always so good."

But why should I take your citation of divorce records from 20 years later, over Melody's parents' personal recollections and assessment of the "good old days" of the 20's? Maybe Melody's parents just needed to be shown the divorce records from the 40's to decide their childhood and early adulthood wasn't so great after all?
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:33 pm
Well, my parents weren't from Moscow, Idaho so maybe that has something to do with it...LOL.

"...unions have historically filled the space needed for quality control regarding apprenticeships". On what planet? They are ardently against any sub-minimum wage and certainly are not interested in quality control. And what's with all this "certifying agency" business? This is just more government layer upon layer bureaucracy. Just give the kid a job and a pay stub for their work. The laws to protect them are no different than for anyone else.

Besides, I'm not talking about 'apprenticeships'. I worked as a waitress when I was fourteen, got paid $.45 per hour/plus tips. That's a real job for real pay. I was able to afford contact lenses and some nice school clothes. I will admit I missed a lot of TV shows from that time period, though. I learned to work hard and that I certainly didn't want to make a career of such a job. So I became a public school teacher instead.
Melody  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:35 pm
Oh, and thanks to unions, a school teacher in Ca. only needs to work in the same school for two years to have tenure. CRAZY!!!
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:46 pm
Quote:
On what planet? They are ardently against any sub-minimum wage and certainly are not interested in quality control.
Read "out of this furnace" by Thomas Bell. It was required reading when I was in school
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42 pm
You should take my assessment because I made a point of counting the divorce applications, by year. I was curious as to what the numbers would be. I physically held every divorce application in my hand. Personal memories are very pliant. Here is an experiment for you. Go to your nearest library that has old newspapers on microfilm. Read through a newspaper from the twenties, the thirties, etc. then go and read the newspaper from when you were 18, 21, 25, 30 and ask yourself, how much did I forget? If you forgot that much, what does that say about human memory?
Jane Dunsworth  Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:56 pm
But whether your life was miserable or satisfying 20 years ago is not the same kind of things as whether you remember the details of this or that situation. The question is whether the kind of life Melody's parents lived in their youth and early adulthood was tolerable, or miserable. In fact, they seemingly preferred it to their later circumstances. Is a listing of divorce stats from a different time period really a better reference for quality of life than how actual people felt about their lives?
Robert Seward  Friday, September 09, 2011 3:03 am
since I have no way of knowing Melody's age, it makes it a little hard to answer that except that I bet the divorce stats I quoted were probably comparable or predate her parents marriage.

There are always going to be happy versus unhappy people. I am in my mid forties and both sets of my grandparents were divorced.
Melody  Friday, September 09, 2011 4:46 am
What does divorce have to do with a discussion about unions?
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, September 09, 2011 6:16 am
Melody said,

"Robert, I've watched your youtube video and did not find it at all disturbing. My father was born in 1912 and Mother in 1916."

I did miscalculate -- I was thinking she'd said her parents were born in '06 and '12, so that puts them a little later than I 'd thought. But it still puts their childhood/early adulthood long, long before the 40's, so again, I'm not sure divorce stats for one county in the 30's and 40's are a better measure of how personally happy two people were in an entirely different place in the 20's and 30's, than their own recollections. I absolutely believe they don't accurately remember the details of specific episodes they witnessed; I am also absolutely certain they were a far better judge of their own overall quality of life than any data could produce.

Nor am I quite grasping how the degree of happiness in marriage relates to whether it is tolerable or burdensome for a child to do physically hard, paying work. If all you're trying to prove is that everything wasn't rosy back then -- well, I don't think anyone's going to argue. But it seems to me Melody's point about her parents' recollections was that the hard work they had to do at a young age did not destroy their happiness -- in fact, they found their lives superior to their later lives, when people lived "better" by many of our measures. Proving that not everyone was always happy about everything doesn't really address that point.
Robert Seward  Saturday, September 10, 2011 6:08 am
The issue with tthe children and work thing has to do with the strongest likelihood that such children in those videos have no opportunity to more than the barest of education. They will be drudges, drones and serfs for the rest of their lives. Homeschooling? right. Kind of hard to study after ten hours in the field or factory. Where is the church in this?
Jane Dunsworth  Monday, September 12, 2011 7:58 am
Fair enough, Robert. But there are scenarios other than worst-case.

For example, you could prevent a situation where a child never has an opportunity for education because his labor becomes an economic necessity to his family, and STILL make it so that a 17 year old who is willing and able to work long hours does not have to get kicked out of his summer job at 7 hours and 58 minutes every day so that the employer doesn't get fined, so that a 14 year old who wants to work more than a few hours a week in the summer is able to do so, and so that there aren't ridiculous hoops to jump through and extreme limitations on kids being able to earn money. The fact that highly abusive situations can arise does not justify every proposition that people come up with to prevent it.
Andrew Roggow  - re:  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:05 am
Matt Weber wrote:
In fact, what we see is that the height of the unions coincided with the golden age of the postwar era, and the decline of the unions went along with the end of that age. I don't envy the working class these days.


Matt,
This argument assumes that the effects of the unions were and are instantaneous. As if the height of the unions past had no effect on today, when he reverse is actually true. Flint, Michigan, where I went to college, has declined in the same way Detroit has. Mainly this is because the unions had a strike, and most of the manufacturing moved out to other states or countries. So that effect of the height of the unions is still in effect today.

The unions were able to climb in influence by riding on the backs of a successful business. After sabotaging that business they declined with the business. Parasites rise and decline in a similar way.
Matt Weber  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:52 am
I don't assume instantaneous effect. All I said was that the height of the unions coincided with the height of the postwar, industry-fueled, economic boom, and that the nadir of the unions is coinciding with the hollowed-out economic landscape we have today. Whatever the effect of unionized labor, it clearly did not strangle industry. Indeed, the postwar boom follows the rise of the unions by a few decades.

The empirical case just isn't there. Unions are moribund now...is the working class better off for it? The question practically answers itself. I guess in a decade or so we'll see that Detroit boom? No, no one believes that.

In the end, unions were a response to an intolerable situation; one that because of regulations largely doesn't exist anymore. They can and do abuse power, but are simply not inherently evil and made up of thieving coercive pirates.
Andrew Roggow  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:25 pm
Matt,

Neither I nor Pastor Wilson claimed that all who are in a union are thieving, coercive pirates. But those who organize them usually are. They can and do abuse power because that is the purpose they were created for far more than protecting workers. The protection of workers was and still is mainly just a good cover for the pirating. That unions are "moribund" is irrelevant. The effect of the unions on Flint is still there even if the union is not. So the empirical case works just fine at least in that instance. We should not expect an animal that was killed by a parasite to suddenly resurrect itself just because the parasite that killed it died. Likewise, simply getting rid of unions would not alone cause a Detroit boom again. That is way too simplistic. A resurrection of Detroit will take a lot more than that.
Matt Weber  Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:29 am
If the libertarian Theory of Union Strangulation held, then the postwar boom never would have happened, being strangled by the rise of the unions a few decades prior. To make a case for Flint specifically, it would take looking at the UAW specifically and analyzing the actions taken there. I actually agree the UAW was a problem in Detroit, what I don't do is abstract that to some sort of evil union ideology.

It's of course silly to say 'They can and do abuse power because that is the purpose they were created for...' Libertarian boilerplate. Do libertarians ever wonder why they have never had any influence?
Robert Seward  Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57 pm
So Melody, are you in favor of 14 year olds on high rise construction sites? Why or why not?

Maybe they can run the forklift at WalMart? or perhaps they can become soldiers in Afghanistan?

A proper apprenticeship is fine. Votech is wonderful. Nothing wrong with a part time job that remembers a kid's frame. Thirteen year olds are not adults and I think that your position is treating them as if they are. Bad idea.
Melody  Thursday, September 08, 2011 5:57 am
Robert, why is everything in this discussion a worst case scenario? We are a nation filled with worst case scenario laws for things that common sense would aptly handle. Are union people and government bureaucrats the only folks in the world with common sense? You would rather see children go to bed hungry at night than buy food for the family with their paycheck from driving the forklift at WalMart.
Robert Seward  Thursday, September 08, 2011 3:05 pm
Mexican children are doing just as you suggest. My brother saw them working at Mexican wal marts. They live such a good life (insert sarcasm)
Jane Dunsworth  Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:01 pm
Do you seriously think there is no economic or other disincentive in this country as it exists, for Walmart to put 14 year olds on forklifts?

And child soldiers were illegal in the US long, long before the union movement.
M. Stewart Quarles  Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:30 pm
"Hey, if you want the company to pay for your hard hat and safety harness, your free to find work elsewhere. Now get lost!"

I think Robert makes a good point about worker safety. The Bible does require it, and I think it is the government's job to enforce it.

I think a case can be made that the first labor unions brought "coercion" into a place were the government simply refused to go.

However, much of that has been addressed via legislation and through the creation of government institutions like OSHA. So, in my opinion, labor unions outlived there usefulness decades ago, and are pretty much as Doug describes, just pirates.
Phillip Harrison  Friday, September 09, 2011 1:06 am
Well, what have we decided? Does the Bible support worker unionization or not?
Andrew Roggow  - re:  Friday, September 09, 2011 9:18 am
Matt Weber wrote:
It's of course silly to say 'They can and do abuse power because that is the purpose they were created for...' Libertarian boilerplate. Do libertarians ever wonder why they have never had any influence?


Matt, you surprise me! Your normally very cynical about people in general, but apparently you think very highly of union organizers. It seems you think that avarice and greed could not possibly be a motive for the organization unions. Interesting.
Andrew Roggow  Friday, September 09, 2011 3:26 pm
Matt,

If it is accepted that union organizers can at the same time have both the negative motive of greed and the positive motive of protecting workers, then the question becomes - which is the greater, more powerful motive? Should we simply accept that the primary motive of unions is to protect workers simply because they claim so? Hardly. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words. Back when the unions were formed, the rhetoric was just as much or more "power to the people" as it was "we want protection". And today unions largely just try to rake as much money out of the company as they possibly can. For the most part, the actions speak for themselves.
Melody  Saturday, September 10, 2011 5:13 am
Just to demonstrate that the unions are not self-serving thugs these days, here are events unfolding this past week:

“We’ve got a bunch of people there that don’t want the president to succeed, and they are called the Tea Party. .  .  . Let’s take these son of a bitches out, and give America back to America where we belong.” - James Hoffa, September, 2011

Last Thursday, a group of longshoremen in Washington state broke into a port. That’s when things got really ugly according to the Associated Press: “Hundreds of longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha. Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours.”
Phillip Harrison  Saturday, September 10, 2011 7:41 am
Of course unions are full of corruption, just like anything else that involves human beings. But the question that I keep coming back to --apparently overly simplistic-- is if there is any Biblical justification for them. I'm not inclined to believe that there is, even though I am a union member.