What is Scott Walker’s fight about? Is it about battling entrenched special interests that pocket tax dollars and kick them back to politicians? Or is it just about punishing a Democratic constituency?
One place to draw a line: “Right to Work” laws. Mitch Daniels is drawing plenty of conservative heat for opposing his legislature’s Right to Work law. But Daniels, like Walker, may be taking the true conservative position.
Advocates describe Right to Work laws as preserving workers’ freedom not to join a union, which is a noble goal — but it’s not what Right to Work laws do. In fact, these laws interfere with the right of contract and they bar certain consensual economic arrangements — specifically, they bar employers from agreeing to hire only union workers.
Let me put it this way: Imagine a liberal talking about a law imposing maximum hours rules. He might say, “nobody should be forced to work 50 hours a week.” That’s true — nobody should be forced to work 50 hours a week — but it’s also a bit besides the point. Bosses don’t force employees to do anything: they place conditions on those who want the boss’s money. If you want to work for me and get paid by me, you will do A, B, and C. Some of these demands are more reasonable or more compassionate than others, but barring extreme circumstances, the conservative position is that people should be able to place whatever conditions they like on those who want their property.
Right to Work laws bar employers from imposing a different sort of condition: the requirement that all employees join a union. Thus they take away property rights and infringe on the right of contract.
There are plenty of stupid labor laws that restrict employer freedom, but none of these laws force employers to have a closed shop. Preventing employers from agreeing to a closed shop is no free-market solution.
ADDENDUM: Charles Johnson (NOT the Little Green Footballs guy, this guy writes the Rad Geek People’s Daily) made the point much better in an email that he allows me to excerpt here:
