Smart union leaders today are trying to figure out how to end right-to-work so they can actually exist.
>Fighting for US state backed monopolies is fighting on the old battleground with outdated weapons that may be immoral (state enforced monopolies often are).
Minor quibble here - that a monopoly exists and that it exists in the US does not make it backed by the state. Monopolies don't need state backing to exist.
But I also agree that we should dust off Teddy Roosevelt's big stick and use it to smash the monopolies/oligopolies if that helps.
>If were going to use the loaded word paternalistic, requiring people to be a union member is more paternalistic than giving them the option.
Right-to-work is about ending free association, it's odd to paint unions as anti-free association. In an ordinary market environment a widget company could set up an exclusive supply deal with a plastic company where plastic is supplied at a set rate under certain agreements and we'd all be fine with that. But if we switch out "plastic" for "labor" and "plastic company" for "labor union" then suddenly we outlaw it. The idea that you think government should interfere in the contractual dealings of labor-supply in our market but not commodity-supply describes the hypocrisy.
>Also I propose policies that (I think) would make their work more valuable.
That's why I called it paternalism. What you think makes their work more valuable is good but even just giving them the tool to decide what is good for themselves is bad.
>Do you think it is fair that the Federal Reserve transfers and additional 2% of workers' pay to capitalists and politicians every year?
Take your Friedman talking points somewhere else.
>Not my belief at all.
But it's exactly what you described. You think that labor organizing in an effort to gain higher pay will hurt your capital investments.
>I know I shouldn't be taking the bait but here goes anyway.
Me too lol.