I’ve noticed that a lot of my friends these days are transfixed by the labor movement and the idea that it represents a source of power for workers in a world defined by wealth concentration. The idea, as best I can describe it, is that redistribution and the safety net are inadequate, because they’re just about compensating for the shame and humiliation that can be a part of wage work rather than shifting the real balance of power.

But wait a second: are labor unions a perfect expression of the will of all workers, or, say, a majority of them at any given time, or rather the majority of them that elects a leadership, which is to say a self-selected group of people who’ve chosen to seek power for a variety of reasons, not all of them terribly attractive, and use their persuasive skills, willingness to oversimplify issues and demonize opponents, etc., to scramble up the ladder? What are the rhetorics that would-be leaders use? You can bet they’ll spend a lot of time talking about what their would-be constituencies are entitled to, how wonderful they are, and how anyone who disagree with them is deserving of contempt, not unlike the way politicians on the right accuse opponents of being un-American while politicians on the left accuse opponents of being motivated by greed.

(Part of my suspicion on this front comes from the fact that while I come from a union family, my family members weren’t always smiled upon for their work ethic while they were legally obligated to pay dues. The world often looks different when you see it through the eyes of people who have accents and who aren’t in the clique of the boss, including the union boss.)

And if labor unions really are flawed miniature democracies, with all of the pitfalls that entails, is it so hard to see why some of us prefer the ideal of an economy built around a dynamic landscape of small-enough-to-fail private firms, in which minorities can build things and institutional arrangements that work, leaving various partners — workers, investors, and other stakeholders — to come and go according to contractual terms that everyone agrees to at the outset?

Let’s allow that we’re dealing with contending ideals. I find the latter ideal far more attractive, and when a worker, investor, or other stakeholder is wronged according to the terms of the contract, I think compensation is appropriate.

So how about that moment before we enter into contracts? A starving man will accept harsh, punishing terms, after all. This is a case for public policies like education subsidies and a health and retirement safety net. My sense is that some of our interlocutors believe that this is not enough, because the basics of social citizenship grow more extensive as a society becomes richer, i.e., workers will agree to unacceptably harsh terms if they’re part of the minority that doesn’t own various prized consumer goods. There might be some truth to this, though surely there should be a limiting principle. I find that it’s good to clarify the issues at stake.