The Property Rights View - from a "devil's advocate"
Re-read my article again carefully. The rationale for collective bargaining as theft is clearly laid out.
The options that you are suggesting for the employer are severe - to be forced to shut down his business or to uproot his family, business, etc to go to more 'work-friendly' jurisdictions are hardly realistic options for most business owners.
I live/work in the business community where one-to-one employee-employer terms of employment are negotiated successfully thousands of time per day. These are not slave contracts but free market business arrangements where both parties have agreed to the deal. The only slavery that exists today is the slavery of the state forcing its citizens to forfeit 50% of their earnings to taxation [ NOTE: Tax Freedom Day was on June 11 this year … http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=18388.]
I can't understand how anyone can view the "collective bargaining" blackmail techniques that threaten real damages to the business owner "or else" as any model of ethical behavior. I would be ashamed to admit that I was a member of a union who supports the union thugs to do my dirty work for me.
Rick: what you call "bargaining" is nothing less that blackmail. You can put a dress on it, but it is still a wolf in a pretty dress .
Regarding children who inherit "property", it is still the property of the person who build up the assets and should be his/her option to do with as desired. If this law was not there to protect your personal property from state theft, then there would be nothing to prevent the government from disposing you life saving upon your death in any manner that it choses.
We seem to live in a time of "Wealth Envy" where those who don't have it [ the 'have-nots'] want it through any means at their disposal [ mainly political] and those that have it [the 'haves'] seek any and every means to protect their accumulated assets earned from a life time of risk-taking, sacrifice, investment and very hard work.
I, for one, celebrate the stories of wealthy citizens who attempt to take their assets offshore to "tax-safe havens" and away from the clutching grab of people & governments who want "their share" without having to do any of the risk-taking, sacrifice, investment and very hard work.
One again, thanks for playing the "devil's advocate" in this discussion.
On Nov 13, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rick wrote:
Theft. Hmm. The manager/owner has some say in this whole process, you know. If s/he didn't want to pay he or she could simply close up shop, sell the assets and move elsewhere - which is being done with off-shore/Third World operations of now-multinational corporations. Since they chose to "give" to the workers/employees a negotiated wage (both sides have to agree, you know), I fail to see how it constitutes theft. Mutual benefit comes into this somewhere - unless you would like to revert back to the plantation owner/slave (unpaid labour) model. Then "owners" could keep ALL of the money - aside from the cost of feeding the slaves, of course. [smile]
In cases where the children of the original owner inherit the "property", I fail to see what risk is involved for them. If all else fails, see "sell the shop" above, and keep the proceeds. The original "owner" had the vision and the decision to take on the risk of developing the "property". Everyone else after that is either a manager/administrator (employee) or lucky inheritor living off the avails of their risk-taking progenitor. Risk? Highly-paid property maintenance crew administrators is more like it. LOL
Anything such unions have is through bargaining - just like at the marketplace. "Ill-gotten rights"? Time for you to challenge the Constitution, I guess.