4 ms·

No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from

No one is forcing you to work at a company which colludes with competitors to avoid poaching each other's employees. No one forces you to purchase products from companies that form cartels. However, we've decided as a matter of public policy that collusion of this sort harms consumers and workers.

st3v3r 10y ago
So the "You don't have to work there" argument isn't ok here, but it's ok for pretty much any other facet of the job? I mean, when someone talks about conditions with Uber drivers or Instacart shoppers, the number one dismissal is always "you don't have to work there". Why is that acceptable there, but not here?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  When a supplier is granted monopoly power by the state (as unions are), it's perfectly reasonable to impose additional restrictions on them. That's why Cable/Telecoms need to negotiate with regulators to change prices, but Joe's Pizza can charge $20/slice if they want. Joe's Pizza lives in a competitive market and if Joe abuses customers, Mario will show up and sell Pizza on better terms. The same is not true if Comcast abuses customers, or if a union does.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    You're not addressing my point. You're kinda just reinforcing the idea that "You don't have to work there" is ok to tell, say, Uber drivers, but not ok to tell you regarding a company having a union.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I am addressing your point. When you have a non-competitive market - e.g. yellow cabs prior to Uber, employment under current union rules - you often need extra regulation to protect people. If we want to create a competitive market - one where unions have no special legal powers, and employers can stop doing business with them if they choose - then eliminating these worker and employer protections might make sense.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        So once again, it's ok to tell other people that, just not you. And eliminating worker protections never makes sense. It then just becomes a race to see who can undo them the fastest.

st3v3r 10y ago

So the "You don't have to work there" argument isn't ok here, but it's ok for pretty much any other facet of the job? I mean, when someone talks about conditions with Uber drivers or Instacart shoppers, the number one dismissal is always "you don't have to work there". Why is that acceptable there, but not here?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
When a supplier is granted monopoly power by the state (as unions are), it's perfectly reasonable to impose additional restrictions on them. That's why Cable/Telecoms need to negotiate with regulators to change prices, but Joe's Pizza can charge $20/slice if they want. Joe's Pizza lives in a competitive market and if Joe abuses customers, Mario will show up and sell Pizza on better terms. The same is not true if Comcast abuses customers, or if a union does.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  You're not addressing my point. You're kinda just reinforcing the idea that "You don't have to work there" is ok to tell, say, Uber drivers, but not ok to tell you regarding a company having a union.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I am addressing your point. When you have a non-competitive market - e.g. yellow cabs prior to Uber, employment under current union rules - you often need extra regulation to protect people. If we want to create a competitive market - one where unions have no special legal powers, and employers can stop doing business with them if they choose - then eliminating these worker and employer protections might make sense.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      So once again, it's ok to tell other people that, just not you. And eliminating worker protections never makes sense. It then just becomes a race to see who can undo them the fastest.