Representative Torr has introduced HB 1024, a piece of so called “right to work” legislation. Basically, it weakens unions or potential unions by forbidding charges to non-union members, regardless of whether the charge goes to the union or simply goes to a third-party charity. This essentially allows non-union members to enjoy the benefits of working in a union shop in some cases without paying for those benefits, creating a “free-rider” problem.
Cindy Noe introduced similar legislation last year that didn’t go very far. (H/t Charlie Averill for catching the Noe legislation.) I suspect in a Democratic House, this one is dead in the water as well.
From a libertarian standpoint, it seems like a natural — just let individuals negotiate and let the market decide. Unfortunately, the marketplace has already been skewed by the invention of the corporation and allowing corporation to be treated as individuals while shielding the actual individuals involved from liability for the corporation’s actions. That’s not to mention the inequality of bargaining power when an individual worker purports to negotiate with a corporation. Without healthy unions, wages tend to stagnate. Perhaps there is a non-union, pro-individual solution to wage stagnation, but we haven’t found it in this country.
[tags]HB1024-2007, labor[/tags]
Doug,
Hear, hear. “Right to work” legislation is better termed “Right to be a Wage Slave” legislation.
This legislation is wrong, but so are laws that forbid a businessman from shutting out unions.
It’s his property either way. Let him run it as he pleases.
I’d be curious as to your position on whether it’s appropriate to allow businesses to be run under a corporate form that serves to limit individual responsibility?