Teamsters Union President Jimmy Hoffa spoke before Pres. Obama at a Labor Day rally in Detroit, Michigan yesterday:
We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.
President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.
When Pres. Obama spoke, he praised Mr. Hoffa and the other union leaders who were present:
We are proud of them and we’re proud of your congressional delegation who are working every single day with your state and local elected officials to create jobs and economic growth and prosperity here in Michigan and all across the country.
At the White House today, Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to questions about Mr. Hoffa’s remarks by stating that Pres. Obama had not heard these, and that Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. While thus trying to distance the White House from the language, Mr. Carney did not condemn it.
Mr. Hoffa’s aggressive speech has resulted in criticism, particularly in view of Pres. Obama’s call for civility after the shooting in Tucson, Arizona in January. The Teamsters responded with a media release:
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today said he stands by his criticism of corporate-funded conservative politicians who are out to destroy the middle class.
‘We’re tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas. This fight is about the economy, it’s about jobs and it’s about rebuilding America. As I said yesterday in Detroit, we all have to vote in order to take these anti-worker politicians out of office.’
Politics
The fact that a union leader speaks in threatening terms is natural. As I wrote last year on Labor Day:
Unions endeavor to project the impression they are voluntary associations, peacefully protecting the interests of their members. This is a false image. Thomas J. DiLorenzo explains that, in addition to unions owing their existence to the threat of violence implicit in government coercion, “violence and coercion are integral to the existence of unions.” Unions use these tools to intimidate prospective and current members, employers, and other firms.
Even if unions were perfectly peaceful groups, their ability to compel employers to deal with them is based on violence. Unions’ privileged status is a creature of federal law. Governments claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and they use violence and the threat of violence to compel obedience to their laws. Unions substitute the threat of their own violence with the threat of government violence to force firms to collectively bargain and comply with the terms of agreements they would prefer to avoid.
As discussed by David Boaz, sociologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote about the two ways people could acquire wealth, through work — “economic means” — and robbery — “political means.” The political means explains not only the origin of the state, but also the seeking of favored treatment by the government. Unions utilize the political means to survive. They are dependent on politics, and are a favored special interest of politicians.
Protectionism
As noted above, Mr. Hoffa said he is “tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas.” This is an implicit call for trade protectionism, using the power of the government to block people from voluntarily buying and selling what they wish, on the terms they wish. As I wrote in an article on mercantilism, protectionism is plunder:
Tariffs and other trade barriers are immoral. They are an abuse of government power, used to transfer income from one group, consumers, to another, exporters. Bastiat, in The Law, referred to protective tariffs as a form of government plunder, explaining: ‘The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.’
Unions thus use government coercion not only to compel firms to deal with them, but also to protect them from competition from workers in other countries. Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute observed:
In the past three decades, labor union leaders have emerged as among the chief critics of trade liberalization, while the economic evidence has grown that labor unions compromise the ability of American companies to compete in global markets.
… Labor leaders have opposed virtually all legislative initiatives since the 1980s to reduce barriers to trade, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, presidential Trade Promotion Authority, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and pending trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
Pres. Obama has not yet submitted to Congress the trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia to Congress. Unions indeed oppose the agreements, which were negotiated during the last administration. Pres. Obama has accommodated union concerns in obtaining concessions from the three countries.
He has further accommodated unions by tying the agreements to renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. As I wrote in discussing the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, “On its face, the [TAA] program should simply be abolished, since it is just another welfare scheme.”
Another example of union obstruction of trade relates to Mexican trucks being allowed into the U.S. Just last week, the Teamsters filed suit against the U.S. government to try to block a pilot plan, after a delay of almost two decades. The Wall Street Journal explained the disgraceful history:
The North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1994, called for allowing Mexican truckers into the U.S., but the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Democratic allies in Congress repeatedly used legislation to block access. Nafta ruled in the late 1990s that Mexico could impose punitive tariffs, which it did in 2009, affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. goods annually.
Patriotism
Mr. Hoffa, two days ago, implied that firms that invest overseas are unpatriotic: “I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines.”
Mr. Hoffa called for “incentives,” really meaning favorable tax treatment for firms that hire in the U.S., and unfavorable tax treatment for those that invest overseas. This would amount to indirect central planning for the sake of more protection of unions.
Firms should have the freedom to invest where they see fit, regardless of the desires of unions. On the other hand, making the U.S. a better environment for business, and boosting employment in general, would require greater economic freedom, including deregulation of labor.
Since unions are cartels, they demand compensation higher than market levels. This creates unemployment and hurts firms’ competitiveness. Unions thus give businesses a reason to invest overseas, while at the same time seeking more government interference to counter this result.
Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, has a sound and inspiring view of the true meaning of patriotism, based on reverence for the principles of liberty:
I subscribe to a patriotism rooted in ideas that in turn gave birth to a country, but it’s the ideas that I think of when I’m feeling patriotic. I’m a patriotic American because I revere the ideas that motivated the Founders and compelled them, in many instances, to put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line.
Unions, in demanding that government provide patronage and protection, help erode the country’s liberty. They depend for their existence and survival on government’s abuse of power. They encourage the weakening of moral restraint on government, and the diminishment of economic freedom. They are a force against the ideals of liberty, voices against the spirit of patriotism.
Conclusion
Mr. Hoffa is correct that there is a “war.” It is a longstanding war on liberty, including economic freedom. Mr. Hoffa and the unions are on the wrong side.
