[detbuch]

I don't think anybody here has successfully disputed Jim in Ct's original claims at the beginning of this thread, nor his claim that you cannot have more than there is.

There are underlying abstract notions of "equity" and "fairness" in disputes over employment. And there is an attempt to achieve those notions through a balance of power where self-interest is preserved against domination by the other party. The traditional union approach is through strength in alliance versus the power of employers.

In classical balance of power theory, ideally, both sides act relatively the same way toward the same goal. But in reality, most humans not being idealists, both sides seek and fight over advantages toward separate goals. That is one of the major problems with collective bargaining. Advantages are won or lost over time until it becomes too onerous for one or the other party, and outside solutions must happen, i.e., jobs are "shipped" elsewhere, or a business or municipality is shut down and disappears or declares bankruptcy in order to survive.

The collective bargaining model, I think, would be most successful "in-shop." That is, where no outside influence such as national or international, or other conglomerate union bargains for the employees, and no such structure, such as collusion, would exist to give the employer advantage. The reality of in-shop economy would be more likely to dictate the results of negotiation. That does not negate the human tendency to achieve advantage, but it makes it more possible to achieve realistic results. The size of the "shop" also dictates the ease of reaching agreement. The larger and more complex it is, the more difficult it is and the more likely it is to fail, at least over time, and to require outside "arbiters" to settle. Which implies the failure of collective bargaining.

There is also the problem of sovereignty. Supposedly, in our system of government, individuals are sovereign. Employees are each sovereign, and business owners are sovereign. An employer should not destroy the sovereignty of an employee, nor, conversely, should the employees destroy the sovereignty of the employer. There can only be agreement or a parting of ways. Collective bargaining dissolves the sovereignty of the employee, and it brings the power of a state-like entity in conflict with an employer who is thus no longer sovereign in ability to negotiate with individuals. Nor, then, is the property of the owner a sovereign right. It becomes capital to be distributed in ways that are deemed "equitable" or "fair" by a collective or, ultimately by an outside party such as an emissary of the State. Ownership ultimately becomes public, and private property lurches toward extinction.

In order to diminish the right of private ownership and transform it into public ownership, the power of government is necessary. That has been happening by bits and pieces in many aspects of our society. "Reality" has eroded the power of unions in the private sector and so has stemmed that portion of the tide of public into private intrusion. But it has not eliminated it. Union power has grown in the public sector where it is now the most "relevant." And that is the sector, having the power of government, which can intrude on the sovereignty of individuals to own private property. The public sector has become a collective which increasingly demands more and nationalizes more of the private sector and diminishes the sovereignty of its individuals.

The unions in the public sector will eventually, and maybe sooner rather than later, have to confront the reality Jim in Ct speaks of, and will eventually lose much of their collective power, but the crises they create will add to the notions of "equity" and "fairness" which unions have engendered in our society over the last century, and which have been ingrained in enough of the population, especially in younger generations taught so through our statist schools, so that more will constantly be demanded of the private sector and its supposed sovereign individuals to contribute and accede to the demands of the public collective.

Of course, that is the trajectory that is creating our unsustainable fiscal mess. Unfortunately, we can't "ship" our selves or our government elsewhere. But, maybe, "reality" will return us to the great nation we used to be.