|
---by Robert D. $utton In an effort to reach out to labor, President recently hinted what he would use "fast-track authority" for. "Working families around the world," declared Clinton in a recent radio address, "must be able to exercise core labor rights, benefit from legal standards for fair pay and reasonable hours and safe working conditions and improve their lives through unions, just as generations of Americans have done through the UAW." This is another example of manufacturing false rights. Two individuals have the right to deal with one another, on terms voluntarily chosen by both. An individual does not have the "right" to any terms other than those others are willing to offer him. If a man takes a job, he has the right to expect payment�in a mutually agreed upon sum�for the work he performs. If he does not like his wages, thinks too many hours are demanded of him, or feels that his working environment is not "safe enough," then he has every right to quit and seek out an employer who can satisfy his needs�and absolutely no right to demand that his present employer provide for them. The immoral is also the impractical. The LAST thing the "working families around the world" need are the "rights" Mr. Clinton wants to give them. To illustrate this, let�s assume that all of the president�s proposals�minimum wage, maximum hour, safe working conditions, abolition of child labor and pro-union legislation�are passed. Many of these families are able to find work because they can be employed more cheaply than their counterparts in other countries. To force businesses to provide these people with a minimum wage would be to demand their employment at a loss. Rather than suffer such a loss, businesses will simply lay people off. These castaways will have an unnaturally difficult time finding new employment, since they are not skilled enough to merit the minimum wage, and since unions exist to close the door to newcomers. There will be increasing competition for increasingly scarce jobs, leading to further downward pressures on wages. The net result of this policy will be to decrease the productivity of labor (fewer workers are receiving the same total sum)�which means: to decrease the supply of products�which means: to increase their cost�which means: to drive down real wages. "Safe work environment" laws are almost identical to minimum wage laws in their effects. Improvements in working conditions, in the absence of significantly increased productivity, mean higher costs of production, which mean higher prices and lower real wages. (Incidentally, if better working conditions raised the productivity labor to a profitable level, then businesses wouldn�t have to be forced to implement them.) What if maximum hours legislation were passed, guaranteeing workers the same daily salaries for less work? This will also mean that the business produces less at the same cost�which means: a decrease in supply and an increase in price�which means: a decrease in real wages. Contrary to popular opinion, child labor cannot be ended by the wave of a bureaucrat�s hand. Child labor is necessitated by parents� incomes not being high enough to support their children. If these children are not allowed to work, they will starve�it�s as simple as that. The alternative to starving, once child-labor laws are passed, is to work in out-of-the-way, more dangerous jobs. And then there�s the union, which helps to "facilitate" all these "pro-labor" measures. Mr. Clinton�s babble notwithstanding, unions have actually decreased real wages for Americans. Without even taking into account the wasted "dues" gone to support unions, the price increases caused by union intervention in multiple industries have outdistanced any wage increases gained by union workers in a single industry. The wages gained by a worker in industry A, are offset by the price increases in industries B-Z. The only thing that can cause rising real wages, improved working conditions, decreased hours and the end of child labor, is an increase in productivity and wealth. If Mr. Clinton really gave a damn about the "working families of the world," he would be out promoting the one system that makes these two things possible: laissez-faire capitalism. Notes Notes |
