Tuesday night's newest episode of ESPN's 30 for 30 series, "Year of the Scab," offers a great lesson in economics amid the backdrop of professional football. It was 1987, a year many football fans would like to forget. But for people interested in how unionizing is a form of discrimination and an affront to free association should definitely check it out.
I remember as an eight-year-old watching my beloved Denver Broncos play on Monday Night Football against our most hated rival, the L.A. Raiders. But John Elway and all of my favorite players weren't on the field that night. Instead, there were guys no one had ever heard of, and would likely never be heard from again. They were strike-breakers, or scabs. And they were professional football players for a few moments in time.
When the NFL players union was displeased with their bargaining agreement, especially regarding access to free-agency, they went on strike, refusing to play on Sundays. This infuriated many fans around the country, some of whom returned their season tickets and refused to watch the inferior players attempting to play a game reserved for the best of the best. But the strike turned out to backfire on the players. They lost their battle against owners and, when some replacement players turned out to be enjoyable to watch, they struggled to regain the fans' faith.
There is certainly nothing wrong with forming unions--people are free to try to bargain for better working conditions. The problem occurs when union members infringe upon the rights of the employer to continue their business practice by hiring replacement employees. What is so fascinating about the ESPN documentary is how it shows the union athletes invoking violence against not only the team management and the replacement players, but even the fans. But for anyone with a knowledge of history and economics, this is not a surprise.
Economist Murrary Rothbard has written of the real history of unions:
Union history in America is filled with romanticized and overblown stories about violent strikes: the Pullman strike, the Homestead strike, and so on. Since labor historians have almost all been biased in favor of unions, they strongly imply that almost all the violence was committed by the employer’s guards, wantonly beating up strikers or union organizers. The facts are quite the opposite. Almost all the violence was committed by union goon squads against the property of the employer, and in particular, against the replacement workers, invariably smeared and dehumanized with the ugly word “scabs.” (Talk about demeaning language!) The reason unions are to blame is inherent in the situation. Employers don’t want violence; all they want is peace and quiet, the unhampered and peaceful production and shipment of goods. Violence is disruptive, and is bound to injure the profits of the company. But the victory of unions depends on making it impossible for the company to continue in production, and therefore they must zero in on their direct competitors, the workers who are replacing them (Making Economic Sense 137).
Employees always have the right to negotiate, and they also have the freedom to quit if they are unhappy. Employers should also have the right to keep their business functioning by hiring new labor. The people that benefit most are those that are able to obtain a new job and an acceptable wage (one presumably higher than other employment options available to them). In 1987, the strike allowed hundreds of players who never got to live their lifelong goal of playing on an NFL field to have that chance. It's a shame those men had to face discrimination and violence.
A good lesson for life: If you don't want to work, don't be surprised when there are people waiting to take your place who are happy for the opportunity to earn a living or pursue a dream. Be sure to watch "Year of the Scab" on ESPN re-runs or OnDemand, and learn a valuable lesson of economics and freedom of work. Here's an extended clip...
I remember as an eight-year-old watching my beloved Denver Broncos play on Monday Night Football against our most hated rival, the L.A. Raiders. But John Elway and all of my favorite players weren't on the field that night. Instead, there were guys no one had ever heard of, and would likely never be heard from again. They were strike-breakers, or scabs. And they were professional football players for a few moments in time.
When the NFL players union was displeased with their bargaining agreement, especially regarding access to free-agency, they went on strike, refusing to play on Sundays. This infuriated many fans around the country, some of whom returned their season tickets and refused to watch the inferior players attempting to play a game reserved for the best of the best. But the strike turned out to backfire on the players. They lost their battle against owners and, when some replacement players turned out to be enjoyable to watch, they struggled to regain the fans' faith.
There is certainly nothing wrong with forming unions--people are free to try to bargain for better working conditions. The problem occurs when union members infringe upon the rights of the employer to continue their business practice by hiring replacement employees. What is so fascinating about the ESPN documentary is how it shows the union athletes invoking violence against not only the team management and the replacement players, but even the fans. But for anyone with a knowledge of history and economics, this is not a surprise.
Economist Murrary Rothbard has written of the real history of unions:
Union history in America is filled with romanticized and overblown stories about violent strikes: the Pullman strike, the Homestead strike, and so on. Since labor historians have almost all been biased in favor of unions, they strongly imply that almost all the violence was committed by the employer’s guards, wantonly beating up strikers or union organizers. The facts are quite the opposite. Almost all the violence was committed by union goon squads against the property of the employer, and in particular, against the replacement workers, invariably smeared and dehumanized with the ugly word “scabs.” (Talk about demeaning language!) The reason unions are to blame is inherent in the situation. Employers don’t want violence; all they want is peace and quiet, the unhampered and peaceful production and shipment of goods. Violence is disruptive, and is bound to injure the profits of the company. But the victory of unions depends on making it impossible for the company to continue in production, and therefore they must zero in on their direct competitors, the workers who are replacing them (Making Economic Sense 137).
Employees always have the right to negotiate, and they also have the freedom to quit if they are unhappy. Employers should also have the right to keep their business functioning by hiring new labor. The people that benefit most are those that are able to obtain a new job and an acceptable wage (one presumably higher than other employment options available to them). In 1987, the strike allowed hundreds of players who never got to live their lifelong goal of playing on an NFL field to have that chance. It's a shame those men had to face discrimination and violence.
A good lesson for life: If you don't want to work, don't be surprised when there are people waiting to take your place who are happy for the opportunity to earn a living or pursue a dream. Be sure to watch "Year of the Scab" on ESPN re-runs or OnDemand, and learn a valuable lesson of economics and freedom of work. Here's an extended clip...