Earlier quoted context omitted.
> calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are. May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this. > As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate…
No, I nor are any of my relatives are in a union. That will not be an avenue of argument for you. Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargainin…
That's a relief. When someone has a financial conflict of interest in how the public perceives a particular political issue, then it becomes very hard to appeal to their reason and objectivity.
>>That will not be an avenue of argument for you.
I'm not looking for an avenue of argument. I'm looking to reach a consensus based on the evidence.
>>Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action
None of that is true. There are no laws that allow them to suppress their employees' ability to engage in collective action. Employees are free to quit, boycott a company, make collective bargaining a condition for their employment, etc. There is no law that deprives them of any of their contracting rights for the benefit of the employer.
I am open to seeing arguments/evidence demonstrating otherwise.
>If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization.
1. The law prohibits a company from negotiating with anyone but a union if a majority of a work unit vote to unionize. This prohibition extends to workers who did not vote to unionize, as well as applicants outside of the company's workforce who did not participate in the vote. This law, which the political left celebrates, is a blatant violation of contract liberty.
2. The law prohibits companies from requiring, as a condition of employment, to not unionize. By prohibiting these so-called Yellow Dog contracts, the law also blatantly violates contract liberty.
3. The law prohibits a company from firing workers who strike: if a company hires replacement workers and the strike ends, the company is not only required by law to employ the workers who ended the strike, but to continue employing the replacement workers.
Being restricted from engaging in hiring replacement workers without conditions restricts the company's free market rights, in order to make it as difficult as possible for companies to disassociate themselves from unions. In a free market, one would be free to disassociate themselves from a union.
>I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that.
Unions are able to derive above-market wages by restricting the contracting rights of the employer to negotiate with parties other than themselves. I've already explained that and you seemingly totally ignored me, which is concerning, given it make the prospects of a rational discussion quite dim.
Unions extracting economic rents is a very widely studied and well understood phenomenon:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=coll...