Author Jason Riley, in his recent book “Please Stop Helping Us,” says “when (politicians) moved to implement federal minimum-wage laws and Davis-Bacon statues … it is crystal clear that Congress passed these statues to protect white union workers from competition from nonunion blacks … We still have the transcripts.”
The solution is obvious. Just use unions who have a membership that reflects the surrounding area’s racial composition. In 1933 there were about 2.25 million union members. Two percent were black. In 1930, however, blacks were formally barred from union membership in 26 national unions. There goes that solution.
Responding to President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery act, the NAACP in 1934 noted that, “Union labor strategy seems to be to form a union, strike to obtain the right to bargain … and close the union to black workers.” This act was later ruled unconstitutional, but to the blacks of the day, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) was commonly known as the Negro Removal Act. It was very effective.
2. Has There Ever Been a Time When the Unemployment Rate . . .
3. Right to Work Law in Wisconsin, Gary North, February 27, 2015.
4. 1934 Minneapolis Strike.
7. “The Union Myth,” Tom DiLorenzo, 2004.
8. “Labor Unions Are Anti-Labor,” George Reisman, 2014.
9. “No, Unions Don’t Increase Everyone’s Wages,” Gary Galles, 2016.
10. “Labor Unions and the Freedom of Association,” Gary Galles, 2014.
11. “The Union Problem,” Murray Rothbard, 1991.
12. “The Political Economy of Government Employee Unions,” Tom DiLorenzo, 2011.
13. “Public Labor Unions Are Getting Desperate,” Gary Galles, 2018.
14. “The Myth of Voluntary Unions,” Tom DiLorenzo, 2004.
15. “A Christian View of Labor Unions,” Gary North, 2018.
16. “Yet Another Way Unions Abuse the Tax Payers,” Gary Galles, 2018.
17. “Union Dues and the Free-Rider Problem,” Gary Galles, 2017.
18. “Labor Unions, Thugs, and Storm Troopers,” George Reisman, 2013.
19. “Labor Unions and the Minimum Wage: A Debate,” Walter Block, 2007.
from “Unions or the Division of Labor,”
It was even the subject of the Cliché of Socialism number 11. In this short article, Hans Sennholz illustrates not only why the market would provide fair wages (based on productivity) but also why coercive unions are dangerous and harmful to the very employment they propose to want to help (as well as harmful to the economy as a whole).
Hans Senholz skewers the myth that “Unions raise wages and the standard of Living.”
To believe that labor unions actually improve the lot of working people is to suggest that the capitalist economy fails to provide fair wages and decent working conditions. It is to imply that a free economy does not work satisfactorily unless it is “fortified” by union activity and government intervention.
The truth is that the unhampered market society allocates to every member the undiminished fruits of his labor. It does so in all ages and societies where individual freedom and private property are safeguarded. (The process works faster and more efficiently in our high-tech, information age with a labor force more mobile than ever before but it worked in previous times too, so long as individuals were free to accept or reject the offers of employers, or to leave one employer and work either for another or for himself–Editor.)
The reason your great-grandfather earned $5 a week for 60 hours of labor must be sought in his low productivity, not in the absence of labor unions. The $5 he earned constituted full and fair payment for his productive efforts—a voluntary contract he likely entered into because it represented his best opportunity. The economic principles of the free market, the competition among employers, a man’s mobility and freedom of choice, assured him full wages under the given production conditions.
“The Three Faces of Unionism,” Hans Senholz, 1985.
“Socialists Argue About Labor Unions,” Hans Senholz, May 1984.