Union-negotiated protections are apparently only okay when people agree with the outcomes
January 6, 2012 – 4:14 pm by JohnLibertarians and anarchists who don’t add the “left-” moniker or some other adjective advertising how pro-union or pro-”worker” they are often get accused of opposing unions or unionization in general. Few misrepresentations of libertarians are farther from the truth. I have found myself to be quite pro-union, especially when looking back at farm and factory working conditions in generations past, precisely because I would never want a government butting in and forcing measures upon employees, employers, and companies that they haven’t agreed upon or negotiated themselves. Clearly, the only problem the principled libertarian has with unions is their collusion with the State and all of the accompanying injustices, distortions, and inefficiencies.
I often oppose the goals of unions in 21st-century America because those goals are so wholly opposed to the outcomes of wealth production and freedom. However, I found myself solidly in a pro-union position recently when reading this discussion thread on Fark.com about Detroit Lions defensive tackle Ndomukong Suh being suspended for two games for unsportsmanlike conduct after a play against the Packers on Thanksgiving Day. While he and several players from both teams were on the ground after a play, he slammed/pressed Evan Deitrich-Smith’s head into the ground three times, stood up, and stomped on Deitrich-Smith’s arm. Deitrich-Smith wasn’t hurt, but that type of behavior is clearly unacceptable at any time, so Suh was ejected from that game, fined, and suspended for two games.
I only visit Fark.com anymore to read the funny, punny headlines of the week, which is probably for the better because I’d had enough of debating with Farkers a long time ago. I did happen to click on the link to that discussion thread, though, for one reason or another. Possibly because the Lions are currently my “home” (i.e., geographically closest) team and I was happy they were doing well this season. Given Suh’s history of fines for dirty plays, many commenters opined that Suh should be banned for life for this infraction. Here are some of their comments:
There is no excuse for this. He should be banned from the NFL for life. Period. You act like that, you’re out.
I agree with you completely but we both know that’ll never happen. Professional sports are rarely if ever about sportsmanship or acting with class.
I fully endorse this. It is a privilege to work in the NFL and to act like a thug on or off the field should result in banishment from the sport.
Two farking games, big deal. He should have been suspended the rest of the season and if he did it again, for life.
Maybe if the punishment were a little steeper each time [it happened in the league, not each time an individual player did it], this kind of thing would stop happening altogether. [Note: The punishment is steeper each time a player does something.]
Many commenters did counter that such a suspension is somewhat standard and seems about right, and one mentioned precedent, but not a single person mentioned anything about the NFL Players’ Union or their collective bargaining agreement with the league. A search of the word “union” returns no hits among 353 comments.
Because these people are Farkers, I can safely assume that the vast majority of them are State-loving socialists who support the Democratic party and the liberal agenda in general. (I have no idea how the commenters on the sports stories of Fark differ from the general Farker population, but at the risk of oversimplification, I’ll assume they’re similar.) Therefore, it seems very likely that at least a few Farkers calling for a lifetime ban of Suh would call themselves pro-union or have taken actions in the past (voting) that are at least nominally pro-union. Did it never occur to a single one of them that it would violate the union’s collective bargaining agreement to automatically ban someone for life for an infraction that didn’t actually injure anybody? Are they completely unfamiliar with the nature of union–employer relations and the due process and protections afforded by union membership? Don’t they know that there are standard, precedent-based procedures for how, when, why, and how much to discipline transgressors? To suggest that the procedures agreed upon by the players’ union and the league, including gradually escalating fines and suspensions, should be changed to include steeper punishments for dirty play that threatens people’s health and tarnishes the league’s image would be reasonable and fair. But no one in that thread even broached that topic, much less considered the role of the players’ union in this type of punishment.
It’s probably that these commenters don’t so much care about the justice and benefits of unions per se, only how they can be used to promote a socialist/communist agenda. Their conclusion, which seems to be, “The benefits and protections afforded union members are good as long as I agree with the outcomes…and the beneficiaries aren’t rich,” is about like saying, “I approve of democracy [mob-rule] as a way of governing society, except when the majority elects someone I don’t like; then we should expel that person and replace him with someone the majority doesn’t want but I do.”
