Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx2!jimr
From: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Unions, CRDs...
Message-ID: <2252@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 18:44:25 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx2.2252
Posted: Fri Jan 17 18:44:25 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 01:19:55 EST
References: <137@ubc-cs.UUCP> <756@watmath.UUCP> <139@ubc-cs.UUCP> <682@mprvaxa.UUCP> <146@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <146@ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison@ubc-cs.UUCP (Rick Morrison) writes:
>>Don: Although one can make the same argument for these services, Brad 
>>proposed a test to determine it something should exist and it appears it is
>>by this test that unions might fail. With respect to taxes the test would
>>be "how many people would be willing to continue to support the services?"
>>Most people seem to be fairly reasonable and capable of judging the 
>>benefits of a service and tend to look toward the common good.
>
>I think, if you are suggesting that people would *voluntarily* continue
>to pay taxes, you are very wrong. People are much more inclined to
>support something when they realize *everyone* will be in with them.
>It is sort of a reverse "tragedy of the commons" that when people
>see that Joe next door isn't pulling his weight they too begin to
>loosen their load. 

This may be true for *taxes*. E.g. it would be rather difficult to
make sure that Joe's children don't play in the public park that
Joe is not helping to maintain. However, it's a different story for
unions. If Joe doesn't want to belong to the union then he is simply
not covered under any contract that the union negotiates on behalf
of its members. Joe would then be left to his own devices to work out
the best deal he can with his employer. He would also not be able
to receive any help from the union in any disputes that he may have
with his bosses. If the union members eventually come to the 
conclusion that Joe is doing quite alright without the union, then
perhaps the union will die. So what? It should be quite easy for it
to be reborn if management starts getting nasty. 

In other words:
a) It should be very easy for a union member to determine if he's
   getting his money's worth from the union, and
b) If he does decide to opt out, then the proverbial free rider
   problem will not apply; he will *not* benefit from other workers'
   membership in the union.
c) Since the opted out worker is not benefitting from union membership 
   there would be no reason for those workers who do belong to the 
   union to believe that he is not shouldering his fair share of the 
   burden.
d) Therefore, Rick's reverse "tragedy of the commons" would not apply.

J.B. Robinson