[mistercow]

Sure, but my point is that a die hard free market advocate should either disagree with what you just said, or swallow that hard pill and say that the problems with unions are just a necessary evil. Instead, many seem to be vehemently anti-union while still holding to a "the free market will solve everything" point of view.

I'm not saying that unions are perfect. I'm saying that it's inconsistent to admit that they can be problematic while still holding that the free market is the ideal.

[jerf]

You should be careful imputing views to others, then criticizing them, it's easy to miss nuances, then jump on the nuances you missed. For instance, here's a consistent view: "Unions can be forces for good but the government has gone too far in empowering them, creating a monster." I live in Michigan, a state that, no matter how much unions would love to deny it, has been badly damaged by them.

I'm a libertarian, and I support the existence of unions... but I also support the existence of Right to Work laws. A union should have to work to justify itself to its members, not be empowered by law to collect funds from individuals who do not wish to be in the union. Unions should be shielded from punitive violence by their employers... which I wouldn't even see fit to mention except that history says it needs to be mentioned... but if the employer can "just" hire replacements then the simple truth is that the union is negotiating itself right out of its market, and it needs to be forced to face up to that, not hide behind the government.

Unions are part of the free market, and should remain part of the free market. They should come and go as companies do, and the very fact that so many are The Union for their industry and that the same unions are nearly-permanent fixtures of the landscape is significant evidence that they are themselves artificially-created government monopolies, and I view them with the same suspicion I would any other government-created monopoly.

[kelnos]

I don't see that as inconsistent at all. Why can't you be pro-free-market and anti-union? You can agree with the concept of a free market, but disagree with how unions currently operate. You appear to be confusing "I hate how unions tend to behave" with "I think unions should be forbidden".

I think unions can do great things to protect the workers they represent, but I hate that many (most?) of them seem more focused on things like retirement benefits and policies that have the effect of making it difficult to impossible to fire bad employees.

[makomk]

> You can agree with the concept of a free market, but disagree with how unions currently operate.

You can do, but die-hard free market types only ever seem to disagree with how unions currently operate, not how corporations currently operate.

[roel_v]

I'm pro free market, and against unions, just as I am against fascist political parties. One could analogously say 'the choice to vote oneself into serfdom is the ultimate freedom' - this is the age old 'problem' with freedom, and while I acknowledge that it's a paradox in the ideology of freedom, I also find it hardly ever a problem in practice. Just as with unions, since they invariably turn into choice- and freedom-restricting guild-like entities.