Skip to main content

HB 265: At last the General Assembly admits workers have rights!

Okay, first some truth in advertising: I run a labor union in my spare time.

I know it’s not politically correct for a Libertarian to run a labor union, but there it is. I’m the current president of the Delaware State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (which is a longish way of saying, “the faculty union”).

A long time ago I did not believe in unions for professionals, and I have certainly never believed in compulsory union membership (the traditional “closed shop”) or even the bastardized “agency shop” that Delaware has heretofore allowed.

But when I encountered the current administration at DSU, I changed my mind. Sometimes only collective bargaining stands between employees and employers with radically different perceptions of what it means to follow a contract. That, however, is story for another day.

What Representative Gerald Hocker (R-Ocean View) has proposed is to make Delaware a formal “right to work” state. If HB 265 becomes law, nobody can be coerced into becoming a union member or paying fees to a union for representation that it’s legally obligated to provide.

This is good law, based on a foundational Libertarian premise: Coercion is not good public policy.

Don’t believe anyone who tells you that this is the death of effective unions in Delaware. Without coercion, labor organizations have to depend on the logic of their arguments and the quality of their service to maintain and grow a membership. At DSU, where membership has never been compulsory, we’ve grown our rolls by dozens of new dues-paying members over the past year. For part of that I thank our administration, which has often been our best recruiter; the rest I attribute to the fact that union officers know that they are accountable to a membership that walks if they’re dissatisfied with their representation.

Unions that are effective in representing their members without destroying the organizations with which they are associated won’t be harmed by the passage of this bill.

The only thing that bothers me is that it makes too much sense for the legislature to pass it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...