I've looked up the often referenced Rand Formula and it's essence is that a union is responsible for all workers, member or not and this what is expected to be done to that end. Big Whoop! I'm sure there's more meat to it than that but in seems to be a guideline on the unions responsible with with employee of a given company.
I'm sure name calling, irritating phone calls, slashing tires and headlocks are not mentioned anywhere.
Your reference to the proverb is cute but really says little. For what ever reason the worker chooses not to have the well in his neighbourhood, yet he has to except it because the majority around him want it and has to accept all crap that the well will bring with it. That not a choice, but that democracy.
It's the much vaunted Rand Formula that puts the responsibility on the unions shoulders that all workers benefit from the labour agreement. That seems to be it.
-----------------------------------------
Not my words, but the following puts it very well.
The Rand formula is a clause which specifies that all the employed must contribute to the union even when they don't want to. The Rand Formula greatly harms individual liberties by giving a re-enforced power to unions. You're a member of the union by force, if it comes to that. The freedom of association does not thus understand the freedom of non-association. It's this clause which best manifests the authoriatarianism of unions in Quebec.
There are good arguments in favor of unionism. Unions can provide useful services to their members, and also play a fundamental role in the protection and representation of unionized interests in front of the boss. From the sociopolitical point of view, unions constitute a barrier between the State and the people and, in general, they contribute to the pluralism of society.
On the other hand, the actual laws ponder the truth of these arguments. In effect, the coercive powers of unions, notably by the entrenchment of the Rand Formula (obligatory membership in a union), giving at the same time the domination of the State and the intermediary powers of civil society. Moreover, as unions represent all people in an organized, accredited unit, it's not certain that they provide the desired services.
But, they said, don't unions provide a real service when they argue for better salaries for the workers? That's true, but we have to take a look at the consequences. The economic analysis shows that if unions succeeded in improving salaries and working conditions of their members without a corresponding increase in productivity, they create unemployment. They redistribute the revenue in favour of their own members at the expense of the unemployed (or, soon-to-be unemployed non-unionized workers).
The creation of so many rules for the labour market, another chief cause of unemploymentis often the byproduct of unionized lobbying. It is without doubt through this corporatist lobbying seeking to preserve priviledges and to block all possible reform that unions excert a most toxic influence on the economy. In effect, this creation of rules serves too often to protect the rights acquired by one minority of workers instead of protecting all workers.
Economic efficacity demands that labour markets be flexible. The magazine The Economist wrote, "There are many things on which economists do not count, but this isn't the case regarding the question of knowing how to put people to work. It is absolutely necessary," they said, "that the labour markets reach a balance between supply and demand, and the best way to achieve this is to maintain flexibility." Elsewhere, many studies established a link between endemic unemployment (at recent highs in Europe) and in America, and the unionization and regulation of the labour market.
This reels in those arguments in favour of syndicalism. If you diminished certain coercive powers of unions (accreditation of all when a simple majority decides, the obligatory membership upon joining, priviledges representing unions in business, etc), and if they became truly voluntary associations, they would certainly be able to render a great service to their members. This solution would no longer be detrimental to other citizens.
We would also have a preview of their utility and of their good work if they were to succeed in keeping their members in the context of liberty. Unions remove, in principle, the right to freedom of association (in which one must also include the right to non-association). The more they reel themselves in, the facts suggest,the more their impact would become truly positive.
. It is pitting TERBIE against TERBIE!
