200 WORDS – “Unions” are GOOD… “National Labor Relations Board Coerced Associations” are BAD

Modern unions wrap themselves in the human rights vernacular of voluntary association. Individual rights to form organizations, enter into agreements with each other, etc. A “rights” justification for an evolution from the monopolist “guilds” of earlier centuries.

Classical guilds (e.g. the stonemasons) had both legal associations (built on voluntary organization, contracts, common interests, family ties, etc.) and illicit (nominally illegal) associations (built on coercion, e.g. “If you’re a blacksmith, you have to join or else.”).

What changed from classical guilds to modern unions (with early 20th c. legislation like the National Labor Relations Act) was that the “or else” became legal.

After the NLRA, with a single union organized election (simple majority ruling), employees permanently lost (1) the choice to be a member or not, to negotiate their own wages/hours, to pay union dues or not… Lost most choice beyond their option to cast a ballot or quit.

This coercion has weakened over time (e.g. “right to work” laws), but the heart of unions remains their National Labor Relations Board connection and the consequential ability to bring legal force against “non-compliant” employers and workers.

Modern NLRA unionization legalized a “tyranny of the majority” in our workplaces, reducing individual liberty and devaluing personal initiative.

(1) Unionization is almost never reversed. Annual rate of “decertification” (defined as active election to rescind union representation, thus union membership drop not due to layoffs from or failure of companies with union representation) for sample year 2010 was 0.04% (approx.). In 2010, 6,200 employees were decertified after a member vote (National Labor Relations Board, FY2010, Table 15C) versus 14,700,000 total nationwide union membership (Bureau of Labor Statistics, FY2010, Union Members Summaryf).

200 WORDS – What Is Money And Why Is It Awesome?

Assume Man A has 3 apples and Man B has 10 oranges. If Man A wants an orange and Man B wants an apple, they can directly trade between themselves (“barter”) in order for both to get what they want.

However, what if Man B doesn’t want an apple? Maybe he wants a banana… If Man C has a banana and also happens to want an apple, Man A could trade an apple for a banana, and then the banana can be traded for the orange (an indirect exchange).

If Man C doesn’t want your apple however, then you add at least one more level of complexity. In all likelihood you would need many more partners in the transaction and with each successive level Man A becomes ever less likely to get his orange.

But what if there was one type of “Universal Fruit” that everyone wanted?

Money is “Universal Fruit”. Money allows us to engage in infinitely more complex trades than we ever possibly could if we had to directly barter for each good or service we wanted. This ability to efficiently trade allows us to acquire quantities and types of goods impossible without it, thus enriching our lives.