There are occasions when I read comments made by people professing to be liberal/libertarian and wonder about their self awareness or lack thereof.
The most recent is a discussion over at The Devil’s Kitchen. DK rightly lambasts the practice of full time union officials being financed by the taxpayer. I agree with DK on this, union officials should be wholly funded by the union’s membership subscriptions. So, no argument there. No, it is in the comments that things get interesting. This from David Davis (not that one, the Libertarian Alliance one). He starts well enough but things quickly go downhill
The new “settlement”, to be imposed (the “unions” would say “agreed” but we won’t) after the election of the first government of the English Revolutionary-Liberalist-Party, will include the abolition of the “trade” “unions”. All of them. including the BMA, the GTC, the whatever nurses have, the NUT, and the like. In fact if we simply bring a Bill to abolish all corporate and/or professional bodies and “unions” formed after 1832, including “charities” (they can start again under a new dispensation for real-charities if they are “serious” about “charity”) we will catch nearly all of them.
My response to this highly illiberal idea was somewhat pithy. Clearly in Mr Davis’ new utopia there will be no freedom of association. I guess we can also write off freedom of speech as he would like to disbar anyone from standing for election on a socialist ticket. Now, don’t get me wrong, I despise socialism and will stand against it on every front – however, the true measure of a liberal is whether he will stand alongside his sworn enemies to defend their liberties. Mr Davis didn’t so much stumble at the first hurdle as fall headlong face first in the mud.
While I have been critical of the Unions here, that doesn’t mean that I would want to see them abolished. Likewise the BMA and similar trade bodies. It is a basic civil liberty to be able to form a like minded collective to further the interests of that collective. I might despise the BMA, but would defend to the death doctors’ right to form a body to represent their interests. Trades unions do not just conduct collective bargaining, they will also defend their members in the event of disciplinary action and provide legal support when things go horribly wrong. It is for this reason that I joined a union when I started my railway employment and would do so again like a shot. Also, some organisations are happy enough to engage in collective bargaining and while both parties are content for this to continue, it is no one else’s business. it is certainly not the place of the state to prohibit the creation of an organisation to conduct such negotiations – that is a matter for the individuals concerned and for the employer to decide whether or not to acknowledge it.
Mr Davis – somewhat tongue in cheek, I hope – suggests prosecuting erstwhile union officials. That would be me, then. In a former life, I was a local safety rep and should I find myself in a similar situation, would not hesitate to be one again. But not in the new utopia run by the English Revolutionary-Liberalist[sic]-Party. It will be the gulag for me. Nice knowing you.
And that is the problem, is it not? Those who call themselves libertarians who will seek to ban that which they abhor, are the very thing they rail against. Assuming that his comment is serious – or even semi-serious, Mr Davis is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination, nor is his imaginary tongue in cheek party. Both are highly illiberal and authoritarian. The very thing libertarians are supposed to be agin.
Well yes and no. I can see what he’s getting at. Libertarianism is not against free association of course, its all in favour of it. But the BMA and the Legal bodies particularly are not examples of free association. You can’t be a doctor unless you are in the BMA. You can’t be a barrister unless you belong to one of the Inns of Court etc. Thus under libertarianism while those organisations would be allowed to exist, they would not operate a closed shop. It would be possible to be a Doctor and not be in the BMA, and to represent people in court without being a barrister. Now its most likely in such a scenario most patients would want a doctor or legal representative who was a member of a professional body that guaranteed standards. But the freedom to see whatever quack/bar room lawyer you want would be there.
If that was what was being said; remove the closed shop (and any legal special considerations); I wouldn’t have any complaint. That, however, is not what is being said, is it? The union closed shop ceased decades ago, yet he still wants to ban them.
And the position, as LR has said of employees unfairly victimised (and it happens, all too often) or of employees raising REAL safety concerns …
And then being crapped-on from a great height by the financial power of the employers…
Needs a countervailing balance.
Would this Mr Davis similarly ban the CBI and the IoD?
And the other cosy-corporate “associations”?
Thought not.
In fact, what Mr Davis has proposed smacks of state corporatism, or even actual fascism.
Not nice at all …..
That’s precisely what it is, and Mr Davis either forgets, or chooses to forget what it was that triggered the need for unions. Despite their bad behaviour in recent decades, overall they are a good thing, not a bad one.
My standard reply to anti-union bigots has always been that if workers are treated fairly, paid fairly and respected, then they would not join Unions and the “problem” would cease to exist.
Of course there will always be an element of trouble makers and those who think they have a right to earn more than they are worth, but these would become more of a minority as others left the Unions.
I currently have a good job and am treated well, so do not need to be in a Union. But next year things could be very different and I am aware that there are many not as fortunate as myself. My Union dues help them and I am happy that this is the case. In future it could be the dues of others that help pay for my rights to be secured.
It is a basic civil liberty to be able to form a like minded collective to further the interests of that collective.
It is and they do, then join with other likeminded to fix prices, fix jobs etc. and then someone exposes it and is called a conspiracy theorist. The difference between a guild and a cabal is the size and importance of it.
Just come across a wonderful quote as to why Trades’ Unions are (were) necessary:
“Men who were fathers of families cringing before a deputy assistant under-manager who had the power to throw them out of their jobs without any other reason tham their own ill-temper or personal dislike”
– Field-Marshal Sir William Slim.
Such memories are passed down many families in the north of England Greg. And far worse.
My Great Grandad told my Dad tales of supporting a plate on a few small blocks of wood and placing breadcrumbs under it. When a wee birdy went under the plate to get the crumbs, he would quickly slash a cut-throat razor under the plate. All for a mouthful of meat for his Dad.
I also have an ancestor who was burned to death in a mill basement aged 8 – she and a dozen or so other kids had been locked in there (usual practise) for the duration of their shift.
“Victorias Children Of The Dark” is a worthwhile read if one wishes to understand the mentality of many older rank and file Trade Unionists.