I recently converted, quite rapidly, from a “progressive” to a supporter of the free market. I have been social libertarian since my political opinions began to form, but I was suspicious of the ability of the free market to create a fair and just society for a very long time. Recently, I developed an interest in reexamining free market ideas and while reading Francois Tremblay’s “But Who Will Build the Roads?” (the book reviewed in July ‘08’s issue of the Free Press), I discovered an example of free market success that essentially clinched my conversion. I’d like to share this example with other Free Press readers.

Before I get on to the main topic, let me start off by saying that liberals are not bad people. Leftist calls for a higher minimum wage, worker safety laws, anti-discrimination laws, environmental regulations, and other economic regulations do not occur because liberals are malevolent people who despise freedom, but because they feel compassion for others. They are not naïve when they criticize businesses for unfairly compensating workers, for exposing workers to unsafe conditions, or for employing practices that are harmful to the environment; what they are naïve about is thinking that the State is the panacea that will cure all social ills.

Now, on to the focus of this article and the reason for my conversion: labor unions. I’m sure that everyone has at least a basic understanding of what labor unions are, so let me skip over the description and give you a bit of history. When I still considered myself a liberal, I appreciated unions and the benefits they can bring to workers, but as I understood it, the State was necessary to allow unions to function. I thought that a free market would find mechanisms to prevent workers from organizing and force the majority of society into wage slavery. I have since learned that this is absolutely false. Until the Wagner Act passed in 1935, unions had no legal recognition or privileges in the United States . Judges would often use injunctions to put a stop to union organizing. Union workers were frequently met with violence from private “security” companies, mobs, and even agents of the State: police, state militias, and the military. While many in the private sector were hostile to unions, government was the main enemy of organized labor. Despite all the setbacks, unions attracted hundreds of thousands of members and won substantial victories.

The State can be pragmatic at times, albeit in a self-interested way. At some point, our country’s ruling class realized that outright violence wasn’t going to win its war against organized labor so they came up with a new strategy: the Taft-Hartley Act. Instead of trying to put an end to unions, the Taft-Hartley Act severely restricted the activities of unions so as to render them ineffective. Taft-Hartley let the NLRB seek injunctions against employers and unions that violated the Act. It made secondary boycotts and sympathy strikes and boycotts illegal, stopped supervisors from becoming union members, allowing them to be used by employers in anti-union organizing efforts, gave the President authority to injunction a real or threatened strike, and interfered with organized labor in a number of other ways. The law even tried to intimidate union leaders by forcing them to sign an affidavit confirming that they were not members of the Communist Party and were not seeking the “overthrow of the United States government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional means” (although this particular clause was declared unconstitutional in 1965)! The law was opposed by labor leaders and even President Truman (despite later using it a number of times during his presidency), but it gained enough support in Congress to avoid a veto. Today, union membership is at a 60 year low in the United States .

Unfortunately, I’ve seen a lot of libertarians, conservatives, and even anarchists look with hostility toward labor unions. I can’t understand why this is the case. Some charge that labor unions are a form of “collectivism,” but this is more a problem of how unions are treated by the government and not a problem with unions themselves. When taken out of the context of the State, a labor union is, like a business, a free association of people. Let me go a bit further in addressing this criticism and say that unions actually discourage collectivism. In our current democratic system, a worker can simply vote for the candidate he feels will give him the biggest hand on Election Day and forget about it the next day. If we take the government out of the equation, all of a sudden the worker, if he hopes to earn a decent wage, work in safe conditions, and so on, must become involved in negotiating fair terms with his employer. In this sense, unions actually encourage responsibility.

Some of the animosity toward unions also likely derives from the misconception that unions are bad for business. Let me illustrate this mindset with a quote from John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods and a self-described “libertarian”:

"Unions as they evolved in the United States became very adversarial, untrusting, and opposed to the success and prosperity of the business. This is my major objection to unions today — they harm the flourishing of the business for all the stakeholders. Instead of cooperation between stakeholders, they focus on competition between management and labor. Instead of embracing the notion of the 'expanding pie' vision of capitalism — more for everyone, or win-win — they frequently embrace the zero-sum philosophy of win-lose."

This may be true of some unions, but it need not be the case. Let me use a historical example to demonstrate this point. From November 1945 to March 1946, the United Auto Workers were on strike against the General Motors Corp. What were they demanding? Labor leader Walter Reuther determined that if the company gave up some of its profits, it could afford to pay its workers 30 percent more without increasing prices. Reuther put forth his model of business as a solution to the problem of inflation. Allow me to quote him:

“Labor contends that the economic facts of life prove that wages can be increased without increasing prices. Increased production must be supported by increased consumption, and increased consumption will be possible only through increased wages.”

By giving workers higher wages, businesses allow them more purchasing power which will come back to benefit businesses when workers increase their consumption. What you should take away from this is that unions need not inhibit the success of businesses and, at the same time, create a framework by which a free society can deal with those all too common liberal objections like “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.”

Before I go on, I’d like to address a potential objection. Some people might have the misconception that I am advocating anarcho-syndicalism. I am not, although I see no reason that a union shouldn’t be allowed to own or operate a business. I am merely trying to get across the point that unions can allow workers to obtain many benefits without a coercive State meddling in the economy.

That brings me to my final point: unions have the potential to become an important part of the Free State Project. If you’re a FSP activist, what should you do? I hope that this article has made you realize that you have some common ground with liberals. Labor unions make a great talking point when you’re trying to convince a liberal to adopt free market positions. The courage that historic union members showed in the face of violence is a testament to the fact that people will seek to live in a just society even in the absence of a government that dictates wages and sets other standards for businesses. I encourage FSP activists to talk to local union leaders and members about how government regulations actually hurt unions. FSP activists should also work with union leaders to build a movement for the repeal of Taft-Hartley. By working together with liberals on things that we have in common, Free Staters can earn more credibility among the left and be in a better position to educate liberals about the benefits of a free society.

Andrew Quemere