On the basis of this post and a private post in which Michael explained 
his meaning, I am persuaded that his comments refer exclusively to the 
national law. Since my remarks pertain to a combination of the national 
and state law of Wisconsin, his comments are not relevant to my post.

Regarding his statement about Commons, he made the same 
misinterpretation as Peter. He attributed an idea to me that is properly 
attributed to Commons. He should follow the link to the Commons article, 
which I provided.


On 2/21/2011 9:38 AM, Michael Nuwer wrote:
> On 2/20/2011 10:37 PM, Pat Gunning wrote:
>>
>> Why do you suggest that collective bargaining is an institution? 
>> Isn't it more accurate to call it a special legal right granted by 
>> the State to a representative of the MAJORITY of employees of a 
>> particular organization? By virtue of his being elected by the 
>> majority, the union boss receives the legal right to prevent the free 
>> exchange of work for pay between those who do not wish to be 
>> represented by the elected union officials and the employer.
>
> This is an incorrect statement with respect to US law under the 
> National Labor Relations Act. Legal interpretation of that law has 
> long held that a union cannot hire or fire an employee. The pre-1930 
> union shop contract, under which union membership is a precondition of 
> employment, is illegal in the US. Similarly, the symmetrical yellow 
> dog contract, under which non-membership in a union is a precondition 
> of employment, is also illegal.
>
> Moreover, those who do not wish to be represented by a union are free 
> to find work elsewhere. The institution of the modern collective 
> bargaining contract which applies to all workers in a group of jobs, 
> is not essentially different from the union of owners (aka the 
> stockholders of an incorporated firm) who can limit the property 
> rights of any single owner. Majority rule at a stockholders' meeting 
> is not significantly different from majority rule at a union meeting. 
> Of course this symmetry is limited by the fact that capital is liquid 
> while labor cannot be disembodied from a human being. But, then, that 
> was Marx's point about power differentials in the labor market.
>
>
>> Commons viewed the trade agreement that results from collective 
>> bargaining as between unions and industry. One side wants higher pay 
>> and restrictions on bosses; the other wants lower pay and a freer hand. 
>
> This statement is not historically correct. Pat assumes a set of 
> institutional relationships, "managements right to manage," which were 
> created through an historical process. A useful study of this is 
> Christopher L. Tomlins, "The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, 
> Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880-1960."
>
>

-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm