2 ms·

I remember. That the employers monopolize and combine and have advantages over the worker is established, but not that doing the same on the other side would b

I remember. That the employers monopolize and combine and have advantages over the worker is established, but not that doing the same on the other side would be beneficial. He mentions in spirit on in parallel that any measure to try to reduce that power of monopolization would be either ineffectual or make it worse. Within the Smithy naivete, one could argue that unionization would mean that by necessity, employers would be require to conspire to be able to deal with unions. Of course, I don't think he had the word for union, certainly not the concept we have today, but he clearly condemns how employers are also able to use force against the gathering of workers.

dredmorbius 9y ago
My read, again, is that Smith pretty much lays out the full case for unions, but stops short of overtly endorsing them. But he explains the advantage, the unfairness of circumstance, of law, of practice, and of effect. Elsewhere he's far more direct in challenging economic power. And if you read the followers of Smith, particularly Mill, that endorsement is far clearer still.