Increase the cost of shipping apparently. The below video, although simplistic, summarizes one of the unintended consequences of a manipulated business market. The good intentions of mandated working conditions, have unforseen consequences. I am all for the workers’ rights to assemble and unionize, but their rights as granted by the government can not be greater than that of the individual. The group has their power to strike, and negotiate as a group, not to petition the government for a wage increase (unless of course this petition is relating to contract, and should then be negotiated in court, not through legislation). The labor policies’ long reaching consequences could be extrapolated to show that the higher cost incurred by UPS for its labor, pushes business to use FedEx which in an effort to avoid those land based labor costs, air freights its packages, and subsequently creates more pollution? It’s hard to be an educated consumer with all this manipulation.
Related Posts:
Josh Gore is a product designer, wannabe inventor, and once upon a time film maker. He spends the majority of his time breaking and fixing things that move on four wheels and pollute the environment, although recently has re-ignited his passion for human powered 2 wheel rock crawlers.
Hold on a second…making it easier for employees to unionize is bad? Isn’t that the point of the federal government – to step in and protect the rights of individuals, in this case, ununionized Fed-Ex workers?
The video complains that Fed-Ex’s labor costs will sky rocket with unionization, and that this is their real edge over UPS. But isn’t that the same as Wal-Mart being able to offer incredibly low prices by shoddy and suspect labor practices, both to its own employees and by buying items made overseas, where labor costs (and worker rights) are even lower?
Now, yes, a competitor is lobbying Congress to make these laws, and for purely economic reasons, but does that mean that Fed Ex employees SHOULDN’T be allowed to unionize? Are you arguing for the abolition of labor unions? If not, why shouldn’t the two similar industries be under the same laws as regard to unionization?
During slavery in pre-Civil War America, some of the biggest supporters of abolition were northern factory owners, not out of any moral imperative but because they wanted a larger, cheaper labor pool. Just because their motives were selfish and economically driven doesn’t mean that their end goal, the ending of slavery, was a bad one. Maybe UPS is lobbying for this change for selfish reasons, but does that mean that Fed Ex unionizing, or the federal government passing laws making unionization easier, are a bad thing? I’m not so sure…
Yeah Josh, I think I’m gonna need some more elaboration on why exactly unions are an outdated legacy before I buy into what this guy is saying.
In what ways has the average worker become more individualized? Showing a picture of a guy sitting back in an office with a glass of wine doesn’t really convey to me how corporations have made an effort to not treat their workers as interchangeable. The assembly line system is only one example out of many potential possibilities in which workers can be exploited, abused, and/or taken advantage of. I think Evan’s Wal-mart example is a good case and point.
One thing I will certainly agree with is that it is incredibly difficult to be an educated consumer these days. Most companies seem to do just fine without unions (I have several friends that absolutely love working for Apple). But it does seem like there are some trades that will not respect their workers unless they speak in numbers. And (I say this fully understanding the dangerous ways it could be interpreted) I do believe that sometimes the government may need to step in to evaluate workers’ rights. After all our government is supposed to “represent” the people.
Thanks for writing this Josh. It certainly gets me thinking. I had a long conversation with a friend about unions a few days ago and it got really complicated. Its something definitely worth discussing in depth. I’d love to hear more voices on this.
I would never argue against the individuals rights to organize, and petition for better labor through non coercive actions. I believe the dorky character Nick Gillespie seen in the video would agree.
What I disagree with is using coercive means to do so. When labor fights for government mandates they are using the coercive apparatus of government which we have decided, as a society, to hold a monopoly power.
FedEx and Walmart workers can unionize at anytime. They are free to assemble, and fight for better wages, or working conditions. If they receive contract for X wage and X working conditions and those terms are violated we have a court system ready to handle such matters.
If an employer choses to not enter into contract he should be allowed to do so. After all, where is the worker without the employer, and vice a versa?
I would challenge those hailing government mandated labor laws to investigate the unintended consequences. Including forcing jobs oversees where human rights and contract law is not enforced by a somewhat sound legal framework as we have here. Especially countries who do not enforce or have laws regarding Reckless Endangerment.
It is important to remember that labor unions are big business too. They collect money, to act as a negotiator and organizer for the parties involved in the dispute. They like other business want their job to be easier so they petition the government to step in and mandate in anyway shape or form. So when I fight for limited power by government to mandate, I am speaking on both ends because after all Fascism and Socialism are just different sides of the same coin.
In summary, labor unions are fine, government enforcement outside that of a functioning court system is not.