TTI Forums

It's probably a good idea to try and address what arguments Olek and I make separately, since we're coming at it from rather different points of view.

I should also at this point mention that although I'm an Industrial Relations specialist, I'm Australian and things work rather differently here. As such, I tend to prefer discussion the particulars of the American situation, since I do not understand them very well.

I shall first say that my main reason for using the phrase "bleed them dry" was brevity. A more exact phrasing would be "render their employer unprofitable" but I found that a bit long and clunky. Given that if your employer goes bust, it tends to be a bad thing for the employee, I'd say the virtue of prudence is a good one to excercise as well.

With regards to the globalisation thing, yes it is not a good time to be a manufacturing labourer in America. Which means it would be a very good idea to learn some other skill for which there is more demand.

When I graduated from Human Resources in university, I spent a year unemployed despite the fact that I wasn't at all picky about what sort of jobs I applied for (about my only thing was I didn't ever want to work in call centres again). Eventually I realised I was beating my head against a brick wall because I was competing against a plentiful field of applicants, many of which would be better than me becuase they had more relevant experience.

So, I'm back in school learning something else which will make me more competetive. In my case, electronic engineering at a technican's level of expertise. (In Australia, at least, there's a great shortage of people in the technical fields)

Now, for quite a while, I did whine about how terribly unjust it was for me to go to all that effort and expense for all those years and graduate with above average marks and still be uncompetitive in the job market. But guess what? Reality is indifferent to one's idea of how it should be.

If you're being outcompeted on a certain market, it's wise to consider an exit strategy and look into alternatives where you'll have a better chance.

This has always been true for businesses and it's increasingly true for employees themselves. It's not very nice, but that's how things are.

Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of how all this offshore manufacturing has benefitted people from lower income groups by increasing the amount and quality of goods that one can buy with their dollar. My family's certainly not wealthy I know that the manufacturing boom in China has put a great many things within our grasp that we wouldn't possibly be able to afford 10 years ago. I doubt this experience is especially peculiar and one has to take the rough with the smooth.

I shall first say that my main reason for using the phrase "bleed them dry" was brevity. A more exact phrasing would be "render their employer unprofitable" but I found that a bit long and clunky. Given that if your employer goes bust, it tends to be a bad thing for the employee, I'd say the virtue of prudence is a good one to excercise as well.

I would personally tend to agree with you, but my reading of Objectivism (as outlined in Atlas Shrugged, atleast) wouldn't. According to Atlas Shrugged, if a business is going down hill, employees should still always be working to get the maximum they can. If the business goes bust, it is assumed they can always find another job.

This is another 'flaw' in the text as I see it. It's another place where the Nietchzean superman concept comes into Rand. When the 'men of the mind' go on strike, they automatically pick up other jobs - skilled jobs - without any form of formal training, and are automatically successful at it. Individuals in the Gulch include a car maker who becomes an instantly successful blacksmith, or a judge who becomes an instantly successful farmer, or a philosophy teacher who instantly becomes a successful cook - each without the slightest hint of formal training.

I see myself as a bright guy. I have a Physics degree, and know a fair amount about the chemical and physical properties of metals, about thermodynamics, and the application of force. But if you stuck me in front of an anvil, bellows, and a hammer, you'd be _lucky_ if you got anything resembling a useable horseshoe or fork. Blacksmithy is a skilled trade, it takes _time_ to learn. But, according to Rand's vision of the 'Productive Man', someone who is successful at one skill is automatically successful at all others.

Again, in the 'real world' if we want to switch occupations, we have to take time to retrain. We specialize in our economies, and we have a vested interest in maintaining those jobs which suit our skills, because retraining takes time and money we can't always afford to spend. No such restrictions exist in the utopia of the Gulch.

Your personal example is a concrete demonstration of the difference between the real world and Rand's novel. Without their Nietchzean superpowers, individuals in the Gulch would most likely have starved before the community got off the ground (not to mention the geological absurdity of finding copper, iron, and gold ores immediately next to oil shale immediately next to a nutrient rich flood plain perfect for agriculture, all in a tiny confined mountain valley).

Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of how all this offshore manufacturing has benefitted people from lower income groups by increasing the amount and quality of goods that one can buy with their dollar. My family's certainly not wealthy I know that the manufacturing boom in China has put a great many things within our grasp that we wouldn't possibly be able to afford 10 years ago. I doubt this experience is especially peculiar and one has to take the rough with the smooth.

Actually, I am quite aware of the difference this has made - it's the _driving reason_ that the market benefits Chinese goods at the expense of American industry. If there was no benefit to a segement of the American populance, there would be no market. Lower income groups that had to go without certain products due to the high cost of American industry can now purchase those products from foreign sources. To them, it is definitely beneficial. But, of course, this means money which might have otherwise gone into the American economy is now going elsewhere, and, as a result, American industry suffers. Here, again, is a demonstration of market reality. It isn't the fault of American unions that this is happening - this is good old fashioned capitalism working like it's supposed to.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

Producing while being a slave was the exact reason John Galt stopped producing. Productivity has requirements, if workers think they can set the terms by force, then they break such requirements.

My turn to ask for a definition - how are you defining 'force' in the above? Are you suggesting the union workers stormed into the CEO's office, held a gun to his head, and demanded he sign away his rights on a dotted line?

AT

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Check this law out for example:

But the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, negates that right. The law makes it illegal for employers to refuse to negotiate with a union or get rid of striking union workers. It is no surprise that every round of talks between the grocery stores and the UFCW has collapsed. The union can demand anything, however outrageous, and the stores are obliged by law to negotiate in good faith. Though an employer may hire replacement workers, the law requires him to give strikers first preference for any new vacancies.

Taken from http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... le&id=7989

More in deapth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... ations_Act
Which was later followed by another law that tried by failed to fix the situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley


And this is force.

And what about those 'demands' made by the unions? Are you not aware that it was the Auto Industry, _not_ the unions who proposed paying for workers health care?

I don't see how this is a revelant at all. This is a choice by some company to offer a competetive deal over others. So what? Offering that doesn't put a company into chains.

I'm not aware of any laws that force this onto companies nowadays. But that's not too far, given that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_ ... _Labor_Act exists already.

Except, of course, unions who have the practically have legal power to force their terms onto employers, see previous part of my post.

It's probably a good idea to try and address what arguments Olek and I make separately, since we're coming at it from rather different points of view.

Absolutely - I think you are making points which relate to the application of Objectivism in real world economics. Oleksandr and I appear to be having an argument about the interpretation of Objectivist principles, as relates to the relationship of business management and labor.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I would personally tend to agree with you, but my reading of Objectivism (as outlined in Atlas Shrugged, atleast) wouldn't. According to Atlas Shrugged, if a business is going down hill, employees should still always be working to get the maximum they can. If the business goes bust, it is assumed they can always find another job.

First of all, why shouldn't they try to get the maximum they can get? Do you imply that it's immoral to do so?

Secondly, I kind of assumed you've read more then Atlas Shrugged, but you sentence indicates less than that. Have you read other books, especially non-fiction, such as "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" ?

Arakasi Takeda wrote:This is another 'flaw' in the text as I see it. It's another place where the Nietchzean superman concept comes into Rand.

You have to be really careful when using Nietzsche's concepts with regards to Ayn Rand's views, since she completely opposed it, and since his and her philosophy are opposite as well.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:When the 'men of the mind' go on strike, they automatically pick up other jobs - skilled jobs - without any form of formal training, and are automatically successful at it. Individuals in the Gulch include a car maker who becomes an instantly successful blacksmith, or a judge who becomes an instantly successful farmer, or a philosophy teacher who instantly becomes a successful cook - each without the slightest hint of formal training.

Why do you think it was "automatic"? It's true that the novel doesn't mention "formal training," though I'm not sure what you mean by that. The way I understand it most in the valley didn't have "formal training" for their original professions as well.

And secondly, "successful" needs to be more carefully outlined. The novel describes who these "successes" were often easily overrun by those more capable. So, clearly there is a level of success here.

I also disagree with the assumption that a capable man needs "formal training" in order to switch jobs. A man capable of thinking can switch jobs given enough time and effort. In the novel such men had plenty of time to do that.

But, according to Rand's vision of the 'Productive Man', someone who is successful at one skill is automatically successful at all others.

I have to clarify or correct you here.

A 'productive man' according to Ayn Rand is a man who holds reason as an absolute and thus applies to all of his actions. There is nothing automatic here, since it involves free will and thinking. There have been many historical examples of man capable of many skills, such as Da Vinci. So, there is nothing unreal about this.

There is always jobs to be had if you are willing to:
A) Move
B) Learn
C) Work hard.

It is easy to take a job at a restruant making 40k a year with 50 hour weeks if you find the right place--especially if you have previous experience in something else. Then while doing that, learn some new skill if you have to. Teach yourself .NET and take some cert and I bet you can find a .NET job somewhere. The field is just that open.

The whole, "Those mexicans are taking american jobs!", is wrong. There is always more work. More people just means more jobs that will be opened. More people = more spending = more needs supplied = more jobs. Its simple supply/demand.

First of all, why shouldn't they try to get the maximum they can get? Do you imply that it's immoral to do so?

Secondly, I kind of assumed you've read more then Atlas Shrugged, but you sentence indicates less than that. Have you read other books, especially non-fiction, such as "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" ?

To answer the first question, I was merely stating that from a _pragmatic_ point of view, it might make sense for workers to accept a lower wage if the alternative is _having no job at all_. The moral view would be for them to firmly assert their right to the maximum they can get. The consequences of acting pragmatically or morally is something they would have to chose between.

To the second question, I jumbled the phrase badly. I was stating that the examples put forward in Atlas Shrugged would suggest the opposite of Ginaud's position. As I stated in my entry interview, I've read mostly Ayn Rand's fiction - The Fountainhead, We the Living, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged. I've read a couple of the essays in Capitalism, but not all twenty-four of them. I would say, however, that I'm not aware of an example from those other sources that addresses the exact issue Ginaud was raising better than the Atlas example.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
This is another 'flaw' in the text as I see it. It's another place where the Nietchzean superman concept comes into Rand.

You have to be really careful when using Nietzsche's concepts with regards to Ayn Rand's views, since she completely opposed it, and since his and her philosophy are opposite as well.

Two things - first, you are absolutely correct that I should not equate all of Nietzsche's philosophy with Rand. I am not doing that. I am speaking _only_ of the similarity in concept of Nietzsche's Superman and Rand's Productive Man. In most other respects, their philosophies stand as polar opposites.

However, I am also not the first individual to suggest an influence by Nietzsche on Rand's works, especially her earlier works up to the Fountainhead. Even Leonard Peikoff mentions it in his Foreward to the Journals of Ayn Rand (he attempts to downplay this influence, in accordance to Rand's later wishes). It's important to remember that Rand went back to her novel We the Living for the 1960's edition and _deliberately_ removed or revised sentences she believed were too close to Neitzsche. But his influence can be found in her work, even with this attempt to distance herself in later time.

So yes, you _do_ need to be careful in making comparisions between the two. You cannot read too much into some examples, but neither can you separate them entirely.

[Your other points to be addressed later - need to get some other work done]


AT

Oh, yeah. I got one more thought.

Going on a strike is an act of force.

Consider: when an employer hires you, you sign a contract. When you go on strike, you don't quit yet, and yet you do no work, when you should be doing it. Thus, you are breaking the contract. Thus, it's an act of force.

A proper way would be to quit the job, and then go on strike, but then the strike couldn't be done on the property of the employer.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:To answer the first question, I was merely stating that from a _pragmatic_ point of view, it might make sense for workers to accept a lower wage if the alternative is _having no job at all_. The moral view would be for them to firmly assert their right to the maximum they can get. The consequences of acting pragmatically or morally is something they would have to chose between.

Hmm, there is no such right as a right to have the "maximum." There is only a right to enter an agreement in this case. You are only entitled to what the other party offers and agrees on.

Now, "pragmatically" is another bad word. I hope you are not using it from the philosophy of Pragmatism? For once, it has nothing to do with morality and ignores cause/effect relationship in reality.

---

Also, to clarify something for better analysis of Objectivist view on this subject: Objectivism states that what moral is also practical, and practical is moral.

Oleksandr wrote:Now, "pragmatically" is another bad word. I hope you are not using it from the philosophy of Pragmatism? For once, it has nothing to do with morality and ignores cause/effect relationship in reality.

This one is actually one of the problems faced by modern economics (1920-now). An example is the anti-trust laws. They are laws that stop monopolies without even looking at the cause of a monopoly.

Another example is the great depression. People looked at how the government could prevent it from happening even though government involvement is what created it.

Who would of thought... Pragmatism started pouring into America at the same time socialism did...

Ginuad Amarasen wrote:A patent is essentially an artificial monopoly on a particular design given on the condition that you have to make that design public and that exclusivity has a time limit. If you want exclusivity with no time limit, you have to keep it secret! That's a trade secret, but that can only be done with some things, like formulas and software code. But some companies, despite operating in a free economy, want to keep a government-controlled monopoly in perpetuity. And that's riding a tiger that could devour them all!

Wow, hold on, I missed this part of your post.
A patent is a recognition of a private property that is protected by the government as it ought to be. A company that tries to keep its property theirs is being moral. What's wrong with this?

"Free economy" as you say doesn't mean anybody is free to take whoever's property for themselves.

Free economy must recognize the rights of all. Thus, patents stay.

Though, current implementation of patents has flaws, but that does not mean that businesses should cave in to the government; it's the government who must fix the system they themselves broke.

Oh, yeah. I got one more thought.

Going on a strike is an act of force.

Consider: when an employer hires you, you sign a contract. When you go on strike, you don't quit yet, and yet you do no work, when you should be doing it. Thus, you are breaking the contract. Thus, it's an act of force.

Umm, not to be picky, but most unions do not go on strike in the middle of a contract. The kind of situation you are describing above would be a breach of contract, or, less kindly, extortion, which I agree is an act of force.

But, as I said, most unions do not go on strike in the _middle_ of a contract. Take the current Writers Guild Strike as an example. Their contract has _expired_. The reason they are refusing to work is because there is no _new_ contract, and the industry refuses to negotiate with them about demands for revenues which hadn't been addressed in previous contracts (internet royalties, etc.)

Refusing to work when you have _no_ contract may be called a strike, but I don't think you would condone forcing these people to work with there is no agreement to pay them, correct? That would be slave labor, and as clearly an act of force as one could define.

Take a look at any major strike in the past decade - you will see that, where strikes have occurred, it has happened _between_ contracts, not during them.

Hmm, there is no such right as a right to have the "maximum." There is only a right to enter an agreement in this case. You are only entitled to what the other party offers and agrees on.

Now, "pragmatically" is another bad word. I hope you are not using it from the philosophy of Pragmatism? For once, it has nothing to do with morality and ignores cause/effect relationship in reality.

I was stating that they have a right to negotiate for any terms they wish, not that they had a right to have those terms agreed to. And, morally, they should negotiate for the best terms they can receive.

And I use the term pragmatically as Rand might have - remember the following from Atlas Shrugged:

It becomes clear near the end of the novel that Taggart Transcontinental will be unable to fulfill their contract with Rearden Steel for their original purchase of Rearden Metal. Hank Rearden is faced with one of the two following choices:

1) Demand his rightful due as outlined in the contract - this is perfectly moral. It will also bankrupt Taggart. He will most likely not receive his full due, and his trading partner will be out of business.

2) He can chose to extend the credit terms originally negotiated, and add to the original Taggart order. This grants Taggart the chance to realign capital, make repairs, and restore good credit. Once the new terms are in place, Rearden can expect to receive his full due while maintaining his trading partner.

In the book, Rearden goes with option two. Not out of charity, but out of a _reasoned_ look at possible outcomes of his decisions. But is the second choice really _moral_, according to Objectivism? I would certainly argue that it is the most _pragmatic_ of the two. I think the pragmatic view is also a moral view in the above case....others might argue it's charity.

Here, a pragmatic choice is a decision between two competing _reasoned_ choices, leading to the most beneficial outcome for himself. Call it 'taking the long term investment over the short term', if you dislike the word pragmatic.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Umm, not to be picky, but most unions do not go on strike in the middle of a contract. The kind of situation you are describing above would be a breach of contract, or, less kindly, extortion, which I agree is an act of force.

Alright, then we agree on this part.

However, given that laws in USA, it's not the case anyway, since according to those laws employers have to deal with unions.
Would you agree on that?

In the book, Rearden goes with option two. Not out of charity, but out of a _reasoned_ look at possible outcomes of his decisions. But is the second choice really _moral_, according to Objectivism?

It is most certainly is a moral choice according to Objectivism. Rearden states his reason, that he is being fully selfish on the matter, thus it's a moral choice.

I would certainly argue that it is the most _pragmatic_ of the two. I think the pragmatic view is also a moral view in the above case....others might argue it's charity.

I really don't have any idea what pragmatic means in your words other than "rational" then. But then I don't see a reason to use pragmatic at all. It sounds to me like there is some hidden meaning that comes from actual philosophy of Pragmatism. I really dislike this word, but I'll be cool with it for now. Hehe.

As far as charity goes, it doens't matter who argues that it is. It quite simply isn't according to Objectivism.

Returning to some of your other points:

Why do you think it was "automatic"? It's true that the novel doesn't mention "formal training," though I'm not sure what you mean by that. The way I understand it most in the valley didn't have "formal training" for their original professions as well.

A 'productive man' according to Ayn Rand is a man who holds reason as an absolute and thus applies to all of his actions. There is nothing automatic here, since it involves free will and thinking. There have been many historical examples of man capable of many skills, such as Da Vinci. So, there is nothing unreal about this.

Rather than continuing to argue this point, I'll concede it to you, for a simple reason - we are talking about a learning curve for Rand's fictional Gulch inhabitants. To use your comparison to real life, everyone in the Gulch is the equivalent of a Randian Da Vinci. So yes, perhaps everyone there is a prodigy and has a wealth of diverse skills which they learn with relative ease.

The problems I was trying to articulate in this very bad example were the following:

1) By formal training, I was referring to the sort of intensive learning required to perform many highly specialized functions in our current 'real world' society. Absolutely individuals within the Gulch received at least some formal training - the entire point about Hugh Askon and Richard Stadler was that they were both teachers of these three prodigies. Galt had a natural _talent_ for learning, but he actual gained the knowledge of Philosophy and Physics from his teachers (until he, in turn, became teacher to his mentor). In the beginning of the book, much attention is paid to the many jobs taken by Francisco to 'learn the trade'. Certain skills really do take a lot of time to master, and it is generally the case that one does not specialize in a wide breadth at the same time one specializes in a depth. Certain people, like Da Vinci or the Gulch inhabitants, might be able to do both, but this was referring back to Ginaud's real world example. I haven't run into a lot of Da Vinci's in my person life, and assume that they are far more rare than the large number Rand fills her Utopia with.

2) As to how quickly they master it - Hammond, the car manufacturer, vanishes during the course of the book. He's in the Gulch less than a year before Dagny encounters him again. In that time, he's already a master of Blacksmithy - a skill which, if you have ever encountered it in the real world, I believe you would agree is highly specialized. I don't believe the time table presented is one that would be sufficient, in the real world, for someone to master Blacksmithy to the level he is explained to have. Of course, if you make the assumption that he's Da Vinci, or maybe had taken up Blacksmithy as a hobby before coming to the Gulch, well, you may have a point.

3) 'Success', as I was using it in the example of the blacksmith, can be defined thusly - the necessary level of skill achieved must be adequate to produce the items he is credited with supplying the Gulch in the time he is credited as having produced them. In the time table defined above (less than a year), he has mastered sufficient skill at the forge to create replacement car parts, replacement parts for the power plant, pipes and valves for Wyatt's oil rigging, etc. Many of these are not simply tools - they are complex machinery. Using simple manual tools and a basic forge, as described in the book, this would be a _masterful_ undertaking in order to achieve the necessary precision. Too little time, in my opinion, but, again, if you assume he's Da Vinci, then maybe so.

But in all three cases, I'm comparing apples and oranges. The amount of time it would take a Gulch inhabitant to master these skills is obviously different from most 'real world' workers, unless they happen to be Da Vinci. I would say though, if you are going to use Da Vinci as your real world representative, you must do so cautiously - otherwise you are bound to run into proplems due to a fallacy of appeal to exceptionalism - using an exceptional case as the 'norm'.


AT

On reflection, you are correct - I'm using the word pragmatic as synonymous with rational. There's no intent to have a hidden meaning here.

Perhaps the only problem is that, when you discuss a 'rational' choice, it often implies that there is really only _one_ correct decision. In the case outline, there are two rational choices, both of which have a different outcome, and both of which are moral. So pragmatic might be viewed as suggesting that one of the two rational choices is a better decision than the other, in terms of looking at their outcomes. In that case, the use of the word pragmatic is _similar_ to its use in the philosophy of Pragmatism, in that it is looking at outcome, rather than the reasoning itself. But I think you'd be reading too much into my statement to assume I was using it in exactly the same manner as it is used in that branch of philosophy.

AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

It's probably a good idea to try and address what arguments Olek and I make separately, since we're coming at it from rather different points of view.

Absolutely - I think you are making points which relate to the application of Objectivism in real world economics. Oleksandr and I appear to be having an argument about the interpretation of Objectivist principles, as relates to the relationship of business management and labor.

Pretty much. I'm a snub-nosed empiricist (since the word 'pragmatist' has bad associations here and I'm really using to to mean 'empiricist' anyway) so my main concern with a theory, particularly an economic one, is how well it is likely to work when applied.

I'll leave you and Olek to discuss in this thread, since I'll just middle it up by continuing with a parrallel argument.

Umm, not to be picky, but most unions do not go on strike in the middle of a contract. The kind of situation you are describing above would be a breach of contract, or, less kindly, extortion, which I agree is an act of force.

Alright, then we agree on this part.

However, given that laws in USA, it's not the case anyway, since according to those laws employers have to deal with unions.
Would you agree on that?

No I would not, because I don't agree with your interpretation of the law or the current state of its enforecement, or your definition of force as implied by your previous statements:

Quote:
But the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, negates that right. The law makes it illegal for employers to refuse to negotiate with a union or get rid of striking union workers. It is no surprise that every round of talks between the grocery stores and the UFCW has collapsed. The union can demand anything, however outrageous, and the stores are obliged by law to negotiate in good faith. Though an employer may hire replacement workers, the law requires him to give strikers first preference for any new vacancies.

Taken from http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... le&id=7989

More in deapth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... ations_Act
Which was later followed by another law that tried by failed to fix the situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley


And this is force.

To start this discussion, here's the full text of the National Labor Relations Act itself:
http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/n ... s_act.aspx

I'll address your direct quote first -

But the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, negates that right. The law makes it illegal for employers to refuse to negotiate with a union or get rid of striking union workers. It is no surprise that every round of talks between the grocery stores and the UFCW has collapsed. The union can demand anything, however outrageous, and the stores are obliged by law to negotiate in good faith. Though an employer may hire replacement workers, the law requires him to give strikers first preference for any new vacancies.

The bolded section is a logical fallacy - at best, an appeal to emotion; at worst, an attack ad hominen. It has no place in a rational argument. The speaker in this quote is mixing factual and emotional language. I will deal _only_ with those section that actual exist in the NLRA. But before that, I want to address the historical context of the NLRA and why I disagree with your definition of force.

Before the NLRA was passed in 1935, it was common practice for business owners to hire union breakers, arm them, and send them against potential union organizers in their workforce. These thugs used to break peoples legs and even assassinate the most vocal organizers.

Assassination and physical assault - that is force.

In the cases where unions managed to organize even under these threats, there was often retaliation against the business owners, resulting in vandalizism, arson, and sabotage.

Physical assault, destruction of private property - that is force.

The government created and enacted the NLRA to outlaw both of these practices. The government stated that both sides in a labor dispute _must_ use negotiate, not violence, to resolve their differences.

Being forced to talk to someone you disagree with, in good faith? - sorry, that's not my definition of force.

The NLRA states a business must _negotiate_ with a union; it does not state that a business must accept the terms dictated by a union, which is what the quote from the Rand organization is implying. If you are going to suggest that being required to sit in a room having a conversations with someone whom you disagree with is force, then no rational argument can take place, because all rational argument would be force, under that definition.

But even if you do believe that being required to talk to someone is force, you still can't make the argument that your quote is suggesting. The reason is the Taft-Hartley act of 1947, which you alluded to with the strange moniker "tried and failed to fix the situation" - I know of _no_ labor organizations who would agree to that moniker. Most believe that Taft-Hartley gutted the NLRA entirely.

Here's the text of Taft-Hartley:
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/tafthartley.html

According to Taft-Hartley, in cases where a dispute arises between management and labor which has reached an impass, the government may sent a representative to 'kickstart' negotiations. This individual has the right to create a plan for resolving these differences.

Most relevant to the discussion here is section 203: If the government arbiter is unable to bring the parties together initially, he or she may induce the parties to [/u] volunarily[/u] resolve the dispute by means other than a strike, lockout, etc.

The failure or
refusal of either party to agree to any procedure suggested by the
Director shall not be deemed a violation of any duty or obligation
imposed by this Act

This section has been upheld in court cases to mean the following - if, for instance, management decides to suspend any and all meetings with union negotiators, even after being asked to resume voluntarily by the State's representative, then are NOT in violation of the Act. So, according to Taft-Hartley, you don't even have to negotiate with the Union is you don't want to. The portion of the NRLA that states you need to negotiate was ammended and rendered impotent by Taft-Hartley.

So, if courts have held that you don't even have to meet with labor reps, then where is the force?

The Ayn Rand organization quote also aludes to portions of Taft Hartley which allows an employer to replace union workers with non-union workers (Taft Hartley guarantees the right of management to employ non-union workers in their businesses). The portion about giving preference to previous strikers is, again, voluntary. It's not a legal requirement. So you can in fact fire your union workers and replace them with non-union, under Taft-Hartley.

Again, I ask, where is the force against management? You have an absolute freedom to ignore negotiations, to hire only non-union workers, and to fire those who chose to strike and replace them.


I propose that the entire quote you listed isn't, in fact, an argument that unions have 'too much power'. That simply isn't reflected in the reality of today's Labor law. It is, in fact, an emotional rant against the right of workers to unionize in the first place, because a union provides a counterbalance to the power of organized management.


Labor unions have existed for as long as there have been corporations. Both have a right to exist which come from the _same_ foundation - the Right of Free Association. Businessmen and investors have a right to associate with each other that results in legal rights and protections of incorporation. Without the guarantee of a right of free association, the foundations of incorporation would be at risk. But that same right guarantees the right of workers to form labor unions. You cannot argue in favor of one and the exclusion of the other.

The reason labor unions exist is because they allow individual workers to offset the power imbalance inherent in an _association_ of management - all those legal rights and protections guaranteed by incorporation. By creating that balance with a guarantee of rights and protections of their own, workers come to the negotiating table with management on a fair playing field. Without them, management has all the advantage, and the terms dictated are always one sided.


In summation - I have to ask - what exactly is your issue with Labor Unions?

Do you disagree with the right of workers to freely associate?

Do you disagree that they should be entitled to the same rights and protections as a corportation?

Do you disagree that they have a right to fair negotiations, where both sides can state terms of equal value?

Do you believe, in the face of opposing evidence by current legal precedent into the interpretation of the NLRA and Taft-Hartley, that somehow Labor Unions still have 'more' power than management?

I don't have a sense of the reasoning at the source of your argument. Perhaps there is something I am missing....?


AT

Let me take a moment to make my own position in all this more articulate:

I do not refer to myself as an Objectivist in my daily life, because I do not recognize 'Objectivism' as it is generally represented today by organizations and intellectuals such as the Ayn Rand Organization, Leonard Peikoff, etc.

I believe these organizations and individuals have been corrupted in their interpretation of Objectivism, when it comes to the subject of Labor and Management.

I believe that all producers, whether they belong to management or labor, are Traders, as defined by Rand, and are both working towards an objective value. Both are worthy of the same respect and fair treatment. Both proceed from a position of Reason, grounded in an Objective Reality.

But it has been my experience that groups such as the Ayn Rand organization have abandoned that understanding, and have instead taken up an entirely pro-management position. They no longer view Labor as producers, but, instead, view them adversarily.

This position, in my opinion, is a natural evolution of the Objectivist movement itself. Labor has been portrayed and propogandized as synonymous with Marxism, a philosophy to which Rand and her adherents were philosophically and politically opposed. As soon as one class of producers were portrayed instead as Looters, it was inevitable that Objectivists would throw out their own precept of a 'Fair exchange between traders' for one that raised their Management heros above the looter class.

I believe they have 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' as the phrase goes.

Even in Atlas Shrugged, the 'labor class' is a mixture of both productive people as well as looters. John Galt brings Taggart Transdimensional down not by going after Dagny first, but by removing her most efficient and effective _workers_. The novel is replete with hard working secretaries, line workers, etc., individuals who represent the Objectivist ideal of a producer _within_ the Labor class.

But real world Objectivism today appears to view the whole of the Labor class as existing without such individuals. It is unable to discern when a union is acting to the best interest of its own producers, as opposed to 'looting' management.

It has become blinded by its own ideology.

It has lost its ability to reason.

In a truly objectivist world, there would be no distinction between producers of a management class, and producers of a labor class. They would both be treated with respect.

Today, Objectivist organizations and intellectuals respect managment, and treat labor with contempt.

I do not share this view. I do not call it Objectivism. If the majority of 'Objectivism's followers', including Rand's stated intellectual heirs do, then I am not an Objectivist.


AT

You know, it dawned on me that I never actually addressed some of the original subject matter of this thread?

Here's what I would say about the questionable nature of businesses built on disaster capitalism and their potential self interest in generating and maintaining such disasters.

If I shoot you in the chest, and then offer you my services as a surgeon to save your life, how could you possibly create a distinction between my being a thug (having shot you) and my being a legitimate businessman offering a vital service (medical attention)?

Answer - you can't.

If I'm a medical doctor, I have a vested interest in having injured people around me - if no one is sick, then I have no business. Perhaps I would be tempted to harm others in order to make sure I had a steady supply of patients. That seems to be obviously in my interest. Practicing medicine for pay is certainly a moral action. But I don't think anyone would call me moral if I do both .

So I share the concern about the activities of businesses such as Halliburton, Blackwater, and Carlyle. I believe investigations into their activities are completely warranted, because there appears to be evidence that they are acting in such a way as to 'preserve' their markets by preserving the state of disaster. Just because they are a business doesn't automatically give them the status of moral, even when they are doing good things. If they are also doing bad (using force to preserve their market), then they need to be stopped.


AT[/quote]

Being forced to talk to someone you disagree with, in good faith? - sorry, that's not my definition of force.

I think this is where you're getting off what Olek is trying to say...

You're implying that all force must be physical and physically damaging. But even in your own sentence you use the word to mean unwelcome coercion.

The government is FORCING employers to negotiate, they are taking the right to negotiate or not to negotiate away from the employer. This is a violation of the employer's right to hire and pay what he and the individual employee agree upon.

If the employee doesn't like they pay he can choose to not work there or attempt to ASK for more money. The employer shouldn't be FORCED to negotiate unless he chooses to.

Just because the employees and/or the government aren't physically holding a gun to the employer's head doesn't mean they aren't forcing him to give up his right to choose what he will do with his business.

Here is part of the definition of force in verb form (the rest of the definition relates to the more scientific uses of the word):

1. to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a job in the city"; "He squeezed her for information" [syn: coerce]
2. urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or motivate [syn: impel]
3. move with force, "He pushed the table into a corner" [syn: push] [ant: draw]
4. impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably; "She forced her diet fads on him"

And the writer's guild is basically using force on the industry right now and they might as well be in the middle of a contract. Their strike is interrupting television shows and movies, there are several shows without writers right now that have had to move into reruns...that doesn't sound like its at the end of the contract to me. The union is FORCING all its members to strike, even those who aren't affected by the desire for part of the profit for dvd sales and such.

Speak with any struggling writer trying to make it in Hollywood...if you aren't in the Writer's Guild, you won't be getting a job. The guild controls the work force and FORCES people to deal with them if they want employment...thus removing the rights of the potential employee and the employer to set the terms.

If Writer A and the employer agree to a certain salary and benefits package because he's viewed as better asset and Writers B & C get a smaller salary and no benefits, that's just fine. If Writers B & C don't like it, they can attempt to negotiate for a better salary/benefits package or they can find employment elsewhere. Just because they want something doesn't mean the employer should be coerced into negotiating with them for it.

Let's say the guild decides that all writers should be offered the same benefits package and the same base salary when they start out. If employer's do not agree to this, ALL members of the guild strike...even those not affected by the issue. This forces the employers to negotiate and cave in to demands at some level, less they lose money due to non-productivity.

This hurts both the members of the guild and the employer. While being forced to strike, those not affected by the issue are losing pay. If you're the employer, you're losing your right to choose because all the available workforce is in that union. And in the case of the Writer's Guild...they're trying to FORCE multiple companies to give them the same deal. They aren't targeting just Viacom, MGM, or Warner Brothers...they're trying to FORCE every company that uses "their" writers to agree to the same deal.

Instead of allowing the individual to determine what company offers the best compensation in return for his work, they seek to impose it on everyone.

A good example of this union issue is with my ex. She works for the State of California. When she was hired on she was given 3 choices:

1. Join the union as full member and pay full dues. This gave her the ability to "vote and be heard" when the Union presented plans that affected the workers.

2. Join the union as a "non-participating member" and pay reduced dues. She was able to still get the raises that other union employee's got via voting and negotiations with the State, but could not vote on those initiatives herself.

3. Not work for the state.

She is never given an option to negotiate for her own salary or benefits, she has to choose what the union and the state have agreed upon. There's no chance for a bonus, special advancement, or any other merit based reward or compensation system beyond what the union has agreed to.

I'm willing to admit that the union does have some benefits to its members, but those benefits come at the cost of personal freedom and rights of others.

If I'm a medical doctor, I have a vested interest in having injured people around me - if no one is sick, then I have no business. Perhaps I would be tempted to harm others in order to make sure I had a steady supply of patients. That seems to be obviously in my interest. Practicing medicine for pay is certainly a moral action. But I don't think anyone would call me moral if I do both .

Causing the accident/injury is a violation of the personal rights of the other person, so that would be against what Objectivism would deem to be a moral action. But if you worked at a hospital and a gun shot victim came in, you have the right to charge whatever you wish for said service.

I agree that disaster capitalism is bad when the disaster is purposefully caused by those who would benefit from it. But when the cause is a natural disaster or when its a disaster caused by an unrelated party...I don't see an issue with it. As long as you aren't violating the rights of others (causing a disaster that would deprive someone of life and property is a violation of rights), then I think its just fine.

Causing the accident/injury is a violation of the personal rights of the other person, so that would be against what Objectivism would deem to be a moral action. But if you worked at a hospital and a gun shot victim came in, you have the right to charge whatever you wish for said service.

I agree that disaster capitalism is bad when the disaster is purposefully caused by those who would benefit from it. But when the cause is a natural disaster or when its a disaster caused by an unrelated party...I don't see an issue with it. As long as you aren't violating the rights of others (causing a disaster that would deprive someone of life and property is a violation of rights), then I think its just fine.

I absolutely agree that if I am _not_ the person who both causes and resolves the issue, then there is no problem. But the original thread was about the apparent possibility that some companies might be acting to lengthen or exacerbate disaster situation in order to help their bottom line. In that case, such an individual or business would clearly be immoral by Objectivist standards.


AT

Quote:
Being forced to talk to someone you disagree with, in good faith? - sorry, that's not my definition of force.

I think this is where you're getting off what Olek is trying to say...

You're implying that all force must be physical and physically damaging. But even in your own sentence you use the word to mean unwelcome coercion.

Ugh...sorry - this is obviously a failed attempt on my part on an all to clever word-play. I should have written it as: Being "forced" to talk to someone you disagree with, in good faith? - that's not my definition of force.

I meant to imply that talking to someone was not something I would consider to _be_ force. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer.

You're implying that all force must be physical and physically damaging.

In the context of this particular situation, yes, I am. Absent actual threats of force (which can be spoken to incite fear or apply pressure, which I would consider a kind of force), merely having a rational conversation cannot be considered force. That was my point - if you consider conversation to be force, rational discussion is impossible without also being force.

The government is FORCING employers to negotiate, they are taking the right to negotiate or not to negotiate away from the employer. This is a violation of the employer's right to hire and pay what he and the individual employee agree upon.

I believe, in this context, that the goverment _is_ using force, but that it is morally justified even under Objectivism in this case. Rand outlines the State as being the only justified 'purveyor' of force, and only in the case of protecting citizens, property, and upholding the law. As I stated in the historical overview, the NLRA and the later ammendment of Taft-Hartly were legislated by the government to end the violence plaguing workers and business owners prior to 1935. The government was applying force, in the form of these laws, to _stop_ personal injury and property damage.

If the employee doesn't like they pay he can choose to not work there or attempt to ASK for more money. The employer shouldn't be FORCED to negotiate unless he chooses to.

I think you are splitting rhetorical hairs here - the term negotiation would imply a union _asking_ for a raise. The NLRA and Taft-Hartley only come into effect when a union has asked, been refused, and, as a result, decided to suspend the work of its members.

As I pointed out to Oleksandr, this usually happens _after_ an original contract has expired. If management refuses to negotiate with a union when there is no continuing contract, nothing compels the workers to continuing producing for that owner. At that time, employees _could_ quit and move on, and some do, but most reach a point where they believe further negotiation is possible. Likewise, most owners do not want their work forces to leave en masse, given the tremendous hit to productivity, lost work, etc that would occur. Manifestly, a strike is the state reached when workers will not continue to produce for free, but aren't ready to give up on possible future cooperation, and management isn't ready to completely sever ties with those workers, again, for hopes of future cooperation.

I also pointed out that Taft-Hartley eliminated the necessity of management from having to take any part in negotiations requested by the union OR the representative of the state. Your point about an employer being Forced to negotiate is a non-starter, because no such law really exists anymore. It was eliminated in Taft, and the courts have upheld that interpretation. Everything in Taft is rendered voluntary.

And the writer's guild is basically using force on the industry right now and they might as well be in the middle of a contract. Their strike is interrupting television shows and movies, there are several shows without writers right now that have had to move into reruns...that doesn't sound like its at the end of the contract to me. The union is FORCING all its members to strike, even those who aren't affected by the desire for part of the profit for dvd sales and such.

Actually, the Writer's Guild contract is established on a calendar time table, _not_ on a television season time-table. Their contract was up in November, not 'at the end of the latest season of Lost'. Those were the terms of the contract as negotiated by _both_ parties. And, under those circumstances, suggesting that they should work through the end of the TV season for the benefit of the studios, despite having no guaranteed contract, is just an excuse to get something for nothing. Saying that it 'might as well be the middle of a contract' is setting up a false equivelency that would not be tolerated in Objectivism. The terms of a deal are the terms of a deal, period.

The union is FORCING all its members to strike, even those who aren't affected by the desire for part of the profit for dvd sales and such.

This is a _very_ common conard brought up by people who take issue with unions. Membership in a union _is_ voluntary. You can chose to join or not join. If you join, you are _bound_ by the membership bylaws of that union. It's no different than the rights and _responsibilities_ you take on when signing up to be a partner in a corporation. There are certain things you _must_ do as part of your joining a company - you can't claimed you were 'FORCED' to do something against your will. If you joined the company, you joined it.

Now, there are some workplaces with Unions where union membership is a _requirement_ for holding a job. But this isn't a measure of force. Legally speaking, a true _requirement_ to be a union member in order to get a job was outlawed in Taft-Hartley. What these workplaces _actually_ represent is a contractual term between the management and the union to only hire union workers. The union considers the employment, by the owner, of non-union workers to be a breach of contract. If management agrees to such a condition, it is _contractually obligated_ to uphold it.

That is not force, that is a contract.

The employer could chose _not_ to honor such a condition (it would, of course, have to wait until the current contract expired, or face legal jeapordy); If the business believed it could do better without union workers, it always has this option under Taft-Hartley. But many unions have very skilled, very _valuable_, and very _productive_ members, and, often, it _is_ in the business owner's self-interest to maintain this relationship. So long as their is mutual self interest in this position between the owners and the union, it's not force in Objectivist understanding.

If Writer A and the employer agree to a certain salary and benefits package because he's viewed as better asset and Writers B & C get a smaller salary and no benefits, that's just fine. If Writers B & C don't like it, they can attempt to negotiate for a better salary/benefits package or they can find employment elsewhere. Just because they want something doesn't mean the employer should be coerced into negotiating with them for it.

Let's say the guild decides that all writers should be offered the same benefits package and the same base salary when they start out. If employer's do not agree to this, ALL members of the guild strike...even those not affected by the issue. This forces the employers to negotiate and cave in to demands at some level, less they lose money due to non-productivity.

This hurts both the members of the guild and the employer. While being forced to strike, those not affected by the issue are losing pay. If you're the employer, you're losing your right to choose because all the available workforce is in that union. And in the case of the Writer's Guild...they're trying to FORCE multiple companies to give them the same deal. They aren't targeting just Viacom, MGM, or Warner Brothers...they're trying to FORCE every company that uses "their" writers to agree to the same deal.

Instead of allowing the individual to determine what company offers the best compensation in return for his work, they seek to impose it on everyone.

What your describing above is a popular (managment-centric) myth about how Unions work, but there's no support for it in the current practice of the Law. Taft-Hartley guarantees an employer's right to hire non-union workers. If a company wanted to, they could chose to ignore the Union's terms that only guild members be hired. The only issue is that they would then have to take responsibility for that decision. If it was more profitable for them in the long run, it's their choice to make. Most studios don't, and with good reason.

Individual workers join Unions precisely because collective bargaining is often more effective at getting better terms than is individual bargaining. Joining a union is voluntary, but it brings enormous benefits. In Hollywood, the Writers Guild (and the Screen Actors Guild) have both been very successful in their negotiations with major studios. Most of the major studios have agreed to include the provision that they will only hire union workers as part of their contracts. It was, at the time the contracts were signed, in their interest to do so. Studios which believed they could be successful _without_ using the unions are perfectly free to follow that path as well (as are independent writers, actors, directors, etc. - some of the most successful actors and directors were non-guild members. George Lucas made Empire Strikes Back as a non-guild member, and raked in millions. Many independent studios make tons of money every day without association to the guilds. The precident exists, and it's always a viable choice.)

I can't help but notice a disturbing similarity between your argument and the arguments made by some against the concept of a 'monopoly'. In Hollywood, so many of the actors and writers belong to the Guilds (because it serves their interests in getting better deals), that the unions have a 'virtual monopoly' on talent. Their contractual agreements with the studios over hiring of union workers strengthen's this 'monopoly'. You seem to be arguing that this is unfair, and that the studios have some kind of inherent right to this resource (writing talent) that the union is unfairly preventing them for utilizing. If this was an argument about Microsoft setting terms with other businesses to exclusively use Windows products because it virtually dominates the PC software market, would you have the same objections? Is Microsoft using force in leveraging it's market advantage? Why should the union utilizing it's market advantage in labor resources be any different?

Instead of allowing the individual to determine what company offers the best compensation in return for his work, they seek to impose it on everyone.

If the individual believes that the best compensation they can get for their work is to be gained through collective bargaining rather than individual bargaining (because collective bargaining removes the inherent advantages of corporate association), then what's the problem? Again, membership in a Union is voluntary. You only have to accept the potential consequences of non-membership if you wish to pursue the possible advantages of not having to deal with Union rules. It's a conscious trade off made by rational examination of your options. Both you _and_ your potential employer must make that examination, and come to a decision in their best interest.

A good example of this union issue is with my ex. She works for the State of California. When she was hired on she was given 3 choices:

1. Join the union as full member and pay full dues. This gave her the ability to "vote and be heard" when the Union presented plans that affected the workers.

2. Join the union as a "non-participating member" and pay reduced dues. She was able to still get the raises that other union employee's got via voting and negotiations with the State, but could not vote on those initiatives herself.

3. Not work for the state.

She is never given an option to negotiate for her own salary or benefits, she has to choose what the union and the state have agreed upon. There's no chance for a bonus, special advancement, or any other merit based reward or compensation system beyond what the union has agreed to.

This example isn't even applicable to the discussion - you are talking about a job for the State. The State is not a private enterprise. It is not run like a business. Rand is _very_ clear about the distinction. A State operates under its own rules, regulations, and responsibilities. It is not a market. If a State requires someone to be part of a union in order to be employed by the State, it's a take it or leave it decision. In this case, she has a perfectly viable option in #3. The State is by no means _required_ to give her a job under any terms it does not chose to impose.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote: The biggest issue I see with the application of Objectivist theory to the 'real world' is that most Objectivists (how about just Observers?) simply can't tell the difference between Rearden Steel and Associated Steel.

Well said A T. Ayn Rand created clear-cut monochromatic characters for us. But our real world is seen in shades of gray. It is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. An in the case of these massive multinational concerns, it is only possible to see a small portion of the entire business.

The disaster capitalism initiated this thread is a great example. If conglomerate A has

• A division that provides the highest quality, highest value food stuffs in 25 national markets throughout the world. (Objectivists see this as the greatest good – our wet dream)
• And a second division, a distribution company that seeks to monopolize food distribution within the same 25 countries. (Objectivist might be neutral about this, others might see this as bad)
• And a third land investment division who's main aim is to buy farm land within the 25 countries, and constrain food production. (Objectivist might be neutral about this, others might see this as bad)
• And a secret division focused on destabilizing the competing food distribution systems within the 25 countries to gain advantages for its legitimate businesses. (Objectivist should see this as bad)
• A second secret division that assassinates uncooperative people within the 25 countries to gain advantages for its legitimate businesses. (Objectivist should see this as bad)

I’ve painted a five headed monster here, and for the common man it may be difficult or impossible to see all the heads of this beast. Thus one person might perceive conglomerate A as good, and from an alternate perspective conglomerate A is pure evil.

The truth of our real world is not even this simple. The multinationals and Keiretsu are far more complex with dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of interests.

I'm away on vacation. I'll answer once I get some time.

Bbl.

Arakasi Takeda wrote: The biggest issue I see with the application of Objectivist theory to the 'real world' is that most Objectivists (how about just Observers?) simply can't tell the difference between Rearden Steel and Associated Steel.

Its simple, are they lobbying the goverment to force someone in some way, or aren't they? Are they built on subsidies, or not? I don't see what this has to do with the "dollar chasers" during the big hurricane. Maybe I just don't know enough about that situation though.

Also, either way, for Unions to work, it takes the work of goverment to enforce it. And forcing to negociate is force. Just like taxes.. if you don't pay, you go to jail eventually. If you don't negociate, they take your property. There is nothing a Union does that individuals couldn't do alone. Unions just try to take things out of the market values, just like coersive monopolies--and both of these take goverment involvement to happen.

Now I know companies do ask goverment to force others but not all companies. I agree that is bad. And if someone can't tell the difference, even when they have the evidence, then they are NOT Objectivist.

Lastly, I miss reading short post...