6 ms·

How is this an absurd generalization? This type of crap happens all the time. And people should absolutely talk about this stuff constantly because this kind

How is this an absurd generalization? This type of crap happens all the time. And people should absolutely talk about this stuff constantly because this kind of stuff shows the true colors of the union(s) and what they really stand for. And people need to be constantly reminded of that. All of these unions that center around apprenticeship programs or requiring special training that is near-impossible to get without being part of the union is all just protectionist garbage. Its sole purpose is to control the supply of available labor for certain types of work.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Of course! Unions are a way to balance the scales against corporations. Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent. But the parent is right that anything questionable done by unions is labored over and repeated again and again and again and again while corporations (for the most part) don't face the same scrutiny.
- turc1656 10y ago
  I agree corporations get off far too easy. And that is the fault of the government in many cases for not prosecuting them or letting them off with fines far below the profits of illegal activity. "Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent." - I interpret that sentence very differently. I see it as controlling the labor supply is a great way to prevent the flow of labor that may be just as good and willing to work for less from entering the job market for this activity. It's also a great way to force higher prices upon your customers because no matter which provider/firm they go to they are likely to all have members of the union working there forcing the same wages. This behavior at its core it anti-competitive. If they were in fact corporations this activity would be a felony. But as employees it is not. Just a thought.
  - mjn 10y ago
    The basic idea of collective bargaining isn't really illegal when applied to a employers in general, because it's already the norm on that side of the table. A group of businesspeople with mutual economic interest can legally "collude" when they decide what wages to offer employees, how to structure working conditions, how to carry out negotiations, etc., if they agree to form a legal partnership (you don't even need the newer legal fiction of unitary corporate personhood, just a classic partnership structure). Then colluding in business matters is not only legal, but expected. Why can't employees of such a partnership likewise "collude" when bargaining over wages and working conditions, forming into a single joined legal entity that sits opposite the joined legal entity of businesspeople on the other side of the table? It seems much more asymmetrical to say that the group of businesspeople can legally form a partnership to coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain, but the employees must each bargain individually and cannot form a, let's call it "workers' partnership", or union of workers, to likewise coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain. One thing I find interesting: Will we will see some version of the odd asymmetries between corporate and union law tested out in the courts as the gig economy grows? A company providing labor, for example, can legally ask for exclusivity agreements. Aramark, a big catering contractor, does that frequently. A union can't, though; an exclusivity deal for employees, saying that catering staff can only be hired from a certain union, is banned as a "closed shop" under the Taft-Hartley act. What about a partnership of gig-economy workers? If they're not employees, it seems like they should be able to push for deals more like Aramark ones, even though unions can't do that.
    - kelnos 10y ago
      The problem isn't "collusion" over wages for the union members. The problem is that the union is a gatekeeper for training for or holding that type of job, period. In this particular case, the law requires (for licensing) that prospective crane operators be apprenticed to a licensed operator before they're eligible for their own license. When all the licensed operators are union members, only union members can get licenses. That allows the union to get around the "closed shop" bits of Taft-Hartley, and allows them to restrict the supply of crane operators to their gain.
      - 10y ago
  - Retra 10y ago
    If a company couldn't "collectively bargain", it wouldn't even exist. Companies are not collections of individuals bargaining for themselves.
- arjie 10y ago
  Of course, and I wonder how equitable this control will be. Will it let the guy with the skill do it or will it be the friend of the union president? Able-bodied men and women don't have jobs in America and you want a 'decent' wage floor of 150k for the chosen ones. Trade unions, the supposed bulwark of the left. Worker's rights, etc. I fully expect people to support all this, have the unions endorse the Democrats, and then have discussions at afternoon tea about how everyone else just considers themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and votes against their own interest. They want the jobs, man. And rightfully so. And when you stand there with your $150k-wage-floor job and they have to subsist on the dole because you decided to 'control the supply of labour', you shouldn't be surprised when they don't like you. Unions and union workers are acting exactly as they're expected to under the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. And everyone else is acting exactly as they are expected to as well. So I'm not surprised they're acting that way, but the Mafia act as expected to, and I'm damned if I'll back either of these.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Who is expecting a $150k wage floor? Edit: the union mentioned in the article. (I hadn't read it). It appears you're generalizing this union to represent other unions. It's possible for one union to be exploitative while other ones to have merit. Just as some corporations behave responsibly while a few others blatantly disregard consumers and workers.
    - arjie 10y ago
      > The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B lays out the wage floor for its operators at $73.91 per hour. That’s $150,000 a year before overtime, plus benefits equal to $32.50 an hour. When the operator is behind the controls of a tower crane, he gets a $2-an-hour bump. On weekends, when cranes are moved, pay doubles. With overtime, many union members earn half a million dollars a year. The union in the article. EDIT: I also wonder how they get so much overtime. Surely it couldn't be because of 'controlling the supply of labour'. Yeah, that's right. Give them their half a million dollars a year. It's only 'decent'.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

Of course! Unions are a way to balance the scales against corporations. Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent. But the parent is right that anything questionable done by unions is labored over and repeated again and again and again and again while corporations (for the most part) don't face the same scrutiny.

turc1656 10y ago
I agree corporations get off far too easy. And that is the fault of the government in many cases for not prosecuting them or letting them off with fines far below the profits of illegal activity. "Controlling the supply of labor is very important if you want the wages to be at all decent." - I interpret that sentence very differently. I see it as controlling the labor supply is a great way to prevent the flow of labor that may be just as good and willing to work for less from entering the job market for this activity. It's also a great way to force higher prices upon your customers because no matter which provider/firm they go to they are likely to all have members of the union working there forcing the same wages. This behavior at its core it anti-competitive. If they were in fact corporations this activity would be a felony. But as employees it is not. Just a thought.
- mjn 10y ago
  The basic idea of collective bargaining isn't really illegal when applied to a employers in general, because it's already the norm on that side of the table. A group of businesspeople with mutual economic interest can legally "collude" when they decide what wages to offer employees, how to structure working conditions, how to carry out negotiations, etc., if they agree to form a legal partnership (you don't even need the newer legal fiction of unitary corporate personhood, just a classic partnership structure). Then colluding in business matters is not only legal, but expected. Why can't employees of such a partnership likewise "collude" when bargaining over wages and working conditions, forming into a single joined legal entity that sits opposite the joined legal entity of businesspeople on the other side of the table? It seems much more asymmetrical to say that the group of businesspeople can legally form a partnership to coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain, but the employees must each bargain individually and cannot form a, let's call it "workers' partnership", or union of workers, to likewise coordinate their economic activities for mutual gain. One thing I find interesting: Will we will see some version of the odd asymmetries between corporate and union law tested out in the courts as the gig economy grows? A company providing labor, for example, can legally ask for exclusivity agreements. Aramark, a big catering contractor, does that frequently. A union can't, though; an exclusivity deal for employees, saying that catering staff can only be hired from a certain union, is banned as a "closed shop" under the Taft-Hartley act. What about a partnership of gig-economy workers? If they're not employees, it seems like they should be able to push for deals more like Aramark ones, even though unions can't do that.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    The problem isn't "collusion" over wages for the union members. The problem is that the union is a gatekeeper for training for or holding that type of job, period. In this particular case, the law requires (for licensing) that prospective crane operators be apprenticed to a licensed operator before they're eligible for their own license. When all the licensed operators are union members, only union members can get licenses. That allows the union to get around the "closed shop" bits of Taft-Hartley, and allows them to restrict the supply of crane operators to their gain.
    - 10y ago
- Retra 10y ago
  If a company couldn't "collectively bargain", it wouldn't even exist. Companies are not collections of individuals bargaining for themselves.
arjie 10y ago
Of course, and I wonder how equitable this control will be. Will it let the guy with the skill do it or will it be the friend of the union president? Able-bodied men and women don't have jobs in America and you want a 'decent' wage floor of 150k for the chosen ones. Trade unions, the supposed bulwark of the left. Worker's rights, etc. I fully expect people to support all this, have the unions endorse the Democrats, and then have discussions at afternoon tea about how everyone else just considers themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and votes against their own interest. They want the jobs, man. And rightfully so. And when you stand there with your $150k-wage-floor job and they have to subsist on the dole because you decided to 'control the supply of labour', you shouldn't be surprised when they don't like you. Unions and union workers are acting exactly as they're expected to under the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. And everyone else is acting exactly as they are expected to as well. So I'm not surprised they're acting that way, but the Mafia act as expected to, and I'm damned if I'll back either of these.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Who is expecting a $150k wage floor? Edit: the union mentioned in the article. (I hadn't read it). It appears you're generalizing this union to represent other unions. It's possible for one union to be exploitative while other ones to have merit. Just as some corporations behave responsibly while a few others blatantly disregard consumers and workers.
  - arjie 10y ago
    > The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B lays out the wage floor for its operators at $73.91 per hour. That’s $150,000 a year before overtime, plus benefits equal to $32.50 an hour. When the operator is behind the controls of a tower crane, he gets a $2-an-hour bump. On weekends, when cranes are moved, pay doubles. With overtime, many union members earn half a million dollars a year. The union in the article. EDIT: I also wonder how they get so much overtime. Surely it couldn't be because of 'controlling the supply of labour'. Yeah, that's right. Give them their half a million dollars a year. It's only 'decent'.