It makes more sense when we realize that big business; i.e., the ultra-wealthy supranational corporations actually OWN the government, so the Congress are merely employees, doing what they're told to by the boss. It's been that way for a long while, now, and we should not be surprised at this kind of outcome.
"the picket line of a strick is undeniably a peaceable assembly (at least conceptually)"
Right, but it stops being peaceable the moment they attack people who are willing to cross it.
I agree that employees should have the right to strike, but employers should have the right to fire workers who don't show up for work and hire replacements.
And in fact 29 U.S. Code § 158(b)(4) specifically enjoins strikers from any form of coercion against workers choosing to cross the picket line.
Of course, that provision in the law has not stopped labor violence, nor has any law really stopped labor violence on both sides (and Big Business has as much blood on its hands as Big Labor).
Still, the right to strike is embedded in the collective bargaining process, and the NLRA guarantees that right to all workers. It can hardly be seen as any defense of liberty for the Congress to summarily suspend that right whenever it arbitrarily deems it necessary.
From what I have read of the Railway Labor Act itself, it seems to my layman's mind that Congress' direct coercive interventions in this area rest on a rather expansive reading of the Act, and not on the explicit text of the statute--which makes Congressional action all the more suspect.
I'm no fan of unions--Big Labor is every bit as corrupt as Big Business--but rights exist for everyone or they exist for no one. Working the levers of government so that rights exist only for some but not for all diminishes the very concept of rights.
If workers have a right to strike, the rail unions should have a right to strike. Congress has essentially said on 19 separate occasions that rail unions do not have a right to strike. That means that Congress, at its whim, can take that right away from all workers.
The very fact that labor law is a specialty of certain lawyers is evidence I should keep my mouth shut on this topic. But, as usual, I can't help myself.
Everything government meddles with weaves a web of unintended consequences. Why does the US have a Secretary of Labor? It should not. The Agriculture Department, set up by the socialist, Henry Wallace, should have been a warning.... well it was a warning, but these things happen despite warnings. Legislators, who are lawyers, legislate. They do it, and we suffer.
We have a Secretary of Labor for the same reason we have a Secretary of Commerce--business (which is to say Big Business) has from the creation of the Republic sought the collusion and cooperation of government (which is now of course Big Government) in creating mercantilist havens in which Big Business can indulge its endless greed.
The preferred language for this collusion is that government is to "foster and supervise" business growth and development in this country. The official histories of the Departments of Commerce and Labor attest to this.
That even Adam Smith noted the evils which inevitably arise whenever government and business interests combine was not warning enough to persuade the generations of elected leaders in the US since 1787 that the very WORST thing government could do would be to "foster and supervise" business development and growth. The entire thrust of Wealth Of Nations is, in fact, an extended jeremiad against such behaviors, as they are the classic hallmarks of the mercantilism Smith wrote the treatise to condemn .
(Wealth of Nations is available at Project Gutenberg in numerous formats
Which makes Shakespeare's “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.” from Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2 the eternal call to arms for all who champion the cause of liberty and freedom.
It makes more sense when we realize that big business; i.e., the ultra-wealthy supranational corporations actually OWN the government, so the Congress are merely employees, doing what they're told to by the boss. It's been that way for a long while, now, and we should not be surprised at this kind of outcome.
"the picket line of a strick is undeniably a peaceable assembly (at least conceptually)"
Right, but it stops being peaceable the moment they attack people who are willing to cross it.
I agree that employees should have the right to strike, but employers should have the right to fire workers who don't show up for work and hire replacements.
And in fact 29 U.S. Code § 158(b)(4) specifically enjoins strikers from any form of coercion against workers choosing to cross the picket line.
Of course, that provision in the law has not stopped labor violence, nor has any law really stopped labor violence on both sides (and Big Business has as much blood on its hands as Big Labor).
Still, the right to strike is embedded in the collective bargaining process, and the NLRA guarantees that right to all workers. It can hardly be seen as any defense of liberty for the Congress to summarily suspend that right whenever it arbitrarily deems it necessary.
From what I have read of the Railway Labor Act itself, it seems to my layman's mind that Congress' direct coercive interventions in this area rest on a rather expansive reading of the Act, and not on the explicit text of the statute--which makes Congressional action all the more suspect.
I'm no fan of unions--Big Labor is every bit as corrupt as Big Business--but rights exist for everyone or they exist for no one. Working the levers of government so that rights exist only for some but not for all diminishes the very concept of rights.
If workers have a right to strike, the rail unions should have a right to strike. Congress has essentially said on 19 separate occasions that rail unions do not have a right to strike. That means that Congress, at its whim, can take that right away from all workers.
That's not a good thing.
The very fact that labor law is a specialty of certain lawyers is evidence I should keep my mouth shut on this topic. But, as usual, I can't help myself.
Everything government meddles with weaves a web of unintended consequences. Why does the US have a Secretary of Labor? It should not. The Agriculture Department, set up by the socialist, Henry Wallace, should have been a warning.... well it was a warning, but these things happen despite warnings. Legislators, who are lawyers, legislate. They do it, and we suffer.
We have a Secretary of Labor for the same reason we have a Secretary of Commerce--business (which is to say Big Business) has from the creation of the Republic sought the collusion and cooperation of government (which is now of course Big Government) in creating mercantilist havens in which Big Business can indulge its endless greed.
The preferred language for this collusion is that government is to "foster and supervise" business growth and development in this country. The official histories of the Departments of Commerce and Labor attest to this.
https://library.doc.gov/ld.php?content_id=20863255
That even Adam Smith noted the evils which inevitably arise whenever government and business interests combine was not warning enough to persuade the generations of elected leaders in the US since 1787 that the very WORST thing government could do would be to "foster and supervise" business development and growth. The entire thrust of Wealth Of Nations is, in fact, an extended jeremiad against such behaviors, as they are the classic hallmarks of the mercantilism Smith wrote the treatise to condemn .
(Wealth of Nations is available at Project Gutenberg in numerous formats
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38194/38194-h/38194-h.htm#Page_1)
Which makes Shakespeare's “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.” from Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2 the eternal call to arms for all who champion the cause of liberty and freedom.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5926-the-first-thing-we-do-let-s-kill-all-the-lawyers
Well said. Thanks for the very balanced article.