I write with some trepidation.  I come from a country, Argentina, which circa 1920 was the seventh richest country in the world. It boasted a booming economy, one of the best public education systems in the world, and a functioning democracy. People from all over the world emigrated to Argentina seeking opportunity and freedom. These immigrants included all my great-grandparents, who fled from the political miseries of the Jewish pogroms in Russia and from the economic miseries of turn-of-the century Italy. Sadly, Argentina today is barely above countries like Peru and Guatemala, and certainly far below successful democracies. The economy has staggered, the public education system has gone down the drains, and the democracy is corrupt. It is a case of massive reverse development. So what happened? The most plausible explanation for this decay is the fatal alliance, since 1945, between the Peronist party and the labor unions –an alliance that continues to this day under the Kirchner regime. Succinctly, the populist politicians and the labor unions forged an indestructible alliance to exploit those who produce –an alliance of parasites. The Argentine so-called intellectuals support this outrage in the name of social justice, which helps them secure government jobs in Peronist administrations. All attempts to make labor laws flexible failed. You can’t fire anyone in Argentina, and the labor unions spend union dues at will. Union bosses are extravagantly rich.   When unions can’t win in the polls they take to the streets.  The staggering labor costs prevent economic growth, stifle the creation of new industries, and aggravate poverty.  Labor unions have ruined the country almost singlehandedly. That is why I have a visceral dislike for labor unions. In my admittedly skewed experience, they are barely above the Mafia.

Flash North to the United States.  Is the current attempt by state governments to curb union power unacceptable? If those state laws purport to interfere with freedom of association, then they are unacceptable. We have many historical examples of management allied with the government to persecute workers. This is awful under any view, and in particular the libertarian view. But if those state laws try to prevent labor unions from coercing others either into joining the union or into refraining from offering their labor at salaries lower than the union wants, then they are justified. So I need to know more about what exactly these state laws try to do. If they are trying to prevent labor unions from, well, form unions, then they are wrong. If they are trying to prevent labor unions from imposing their will on non-members, then they are right. Finally, and closer to the theme of this blog, what exactly is a sophisticated progressive argument against these laws (that is, beyond the cliché that these laws are union-busting)?