[chilldream]

Honest question, why is it bad if a union becomes powerful enough to convince an employer to sign a contract forbidding them to hire non-union employees or fire during a strike? I can think of some answers, but none that can't also be applied to, say, usury laws which makes the average internet libertarian's position on unions feel hypocritical to me.

[judk]

Honest answer: because in many states, the law is that a certain vote can force that contract into place, not merely deprivation of labor by the pro-union segment.

The reason for this is simple: government has power because it can use violence. Even democracy works because the majority uses threat of violence to get minority submission to law. (Otherwise, all we have is anarchy/consensus). When a non-near-100% majority of the labor force wants to unionize, it only works if had the power to use force-- its own, or the local/state/federal government. Otherwise, scabs will quite often undermine the union's bargaining position.

Nowhere have I said that anyone's use of force is wrong! In the union debates, people often forget to ask: WHY is the use of force legitimate for the federal govt, but not for the labor pool for a factory? The answer is not obvious, the claim might not be true! "Because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson" is not a valid answer!

[bjourne]

> Honest answer: because in many states, the law is that a certain vote can force that contract into place, not merely deprivation of labor by the pro-union segment.

Now you're cherry-picking. There are several other laws that regulates what employees and unions can do, what they can demand and how etc. For example, the union must be open to everyone so the agreement can't be used to give preferential treatment to someone.

[nickik]

I have no problem with such a contract. I only have problem with state granted power of such a thing.