Non-Union = Communist?

by Bevan Sabo

No, it does not. But that’s not what Andy Stern, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) President thinks.

Here’s the quote from the Cornell Daily Sun:

Sun: Despite the concern, why has America’s unionization rate been falling for the past several decades?

A.S.: It’s a combination of three factors. […]The private sector has decided that they want to give people a communist choice, which is no union. That’s all they really want on their ballot, and anyone who really tries to buck the domination and tyranny of the employer will pay a price.

Sun: What do you mean by a communist choice?

A.S.: I’m just saying that in the communist countries when they have elections, there’s really only one choice. What employers want is to make it very clear there’s only one choice as far as they’re concerned, which is no union.

I’d say Andy Stern understands hyperbole, but perhaps he lacks judgment when it comes to metaphors. Let me share with you a favorite Andy Stern quote:

“What we’re working towards is building a global organization because “Workers of the world, unite!” — it’s not just a slogan anymore. It’s a way we have to do our work.”

How any sane person can quote a Marxist rallying cry and then use “communist” as a derogatory term is almost beyond my comprehension.

Labor unions, as they exist today, have no place in a free society. True, they do harm productivity and hurt workers in general, but individuals have the right to associate with whom they will and so they should certainly possess the freedom to form unions. The problem that arises in today’s economy, however, stems from the fact that unions are afforded special protections by the federal government. For instance, why is it illegal for private firms to “collude” in order to fix the price of a given good or service, but it is not illegal for vast numbers of employees to “collude” and fix the price of their labor? Let there be no misunderstanding, I am against antitrust legislation. But unions are not merely violating what passes for antitrust principles, they are doing so with government support – in other words, unions are employing force to achieve their goals. This is a grotesque black mark on a free society.

To sum up the arguments against unionized labor, I’ll turn to my two main sources of intellectual inspiration. First, there is Milton Friedman, champion of consequentialist libertarianism. His contribution comes from an interview conducted in 2000.

The unions might be good for the people who are in the unions but it doesn’t do a thing for the people who are unemployed. Because the union keeps down the number of jobs, it doesn’t do a thing for them.

The number of jobs is kept down because unions increase wages artificially, thereby distorting the equilibrium of labor markets. Speaking for the prime (or philosophical) libertarians, is Ayn Rand.

It was business, not labor, that initiated the policy of government intervention in the economy (as long ago as the nineteenth century)—and business was the first victim. Labor adopted the same policy and will meet the same fate. He who lives by a legalized sword, will perish by a legalized sword.