5 ms·

Companies colluding to drive down pay is, of course, the mirror image of unions, which have employees colluding to drive up pay.

by hugh3 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago
It would be interesting to see how many union supporters also support monopsony agreements between corporations.
- gloob 16y ago
  Given that the purpose of unions is to weaken companies' bargaining position by preventing them from "divide-and-conquering" the workers, I would guess...almost none? And it would be perfectly ideologically consistent?
- hugh3 16y ago
  I've found you don't generally get far with people by pointing out that their political principles are horrendously inconsistent. In fact, it's only a tiny minority of people who care whether their political principles are consistent or not.
- Daishiman 16y ago
  Who told you a union supporter believes that what is "fair" to workers should also be allowable by corporations?
- peppone 16y ago
  depends on which union model you take german style codetermination might be ok with that or the laissez faire model not so much
guelo 16y ago
If there's going to be an unfair bias between labor and capital I'll side with labor everytime. Besides, labor has been on the losing side for a decade now, http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/09/business/20080409_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/09/business/200804...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Labor hasn't been losing at all. Wages haven't gone up that much, but total comp has. Companies give their workers a greater portion of their compensation in (untaxed) insurance, rather than in (taxed) wages. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=219&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... Pylab made me a nice graph of total comp (based on tables 6.2D and 6.4D from http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected...): http://imgur.com/aDwkL http://imgur.com/aDwkL
  - jshen 16y ago
    You should break it down by income bracket, it looks very different. http://yakkstr.com/posts/791-This-is-whats-wrong-with-America http://yakkstr.com/posts/791-This-is-whats-wrong-with-Americ...
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Your graph has even more flaws than guelo's graph. In addition to having the same flaw I pointed out in his graph (it looks at wages, not comp), it also doesn't give magnitudes at all. All it gives you is relative proportions.
      - jshen 16y ago
        I don't have time to slice it every way possible, but I found this with a minute of time on google http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012345.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10... Please show your unflawed version and tell me what point you think it is making.
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Your graph shows a wage increase as well. So does the original source which your article cites (2 links deep). http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=1140 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa... The key graph: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/figure2.jpg http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/figure2.jpg I take it we are in agreement?
_delirium 16y ago
Indeed a mirror image, and possibly causally related. In the U.S. at least, the big union-organization frenzy was, perhaps not coincidentally, mostly in industries dominated by large industrial trusts that colluded with each other. It seems like a reasonable defensive reaction, even if not ideal: if your counterparts are all colluding with each other, so you have no real choice of employers, you pretty much have to collude as well if you want any chance of negotiating a decent deal. (And, often, the industrialists were colluding with local governments in addition to each other, making it even worse; especially during the period of the "mine wars".) I don't really like unions, but collusion like this is an understandable reason to form them: if the companies are all agreeing behind closed doors to do X and not do Y, the only real ways to force them (since they've removed the ability of market competition to do so) are to either: 1) pass a law banning the objectionable practice, e.g. California's prohibition of non-compete agreements; or 2) get a large enough group of people to all agree not to work for any company unless certain terms are met.
loewenskind 16y ago
A cooperation is in a much stronger position than an individual employee. Unions were created to try and make the positions more even.

Companies colluding to drive down pay is, of course, the mirror image of unions, which have employees colluding to drive up pay.

by hugh3 16y ago

Companies colluding to drive down pay is, of course, the mirror image of unions, which have employees colluding to drive up pay.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

It would be interesting to see how many union supporters also support monopsony agreements between corporations.

gloob 16y ago
Given that the purpose of unions is to weaken companies' bargaining position by preventing them from "divide-and-conquering" the workers, I would guess...almost none? And it would be perfectly ideologically consistent?
hugh3 16y ago
I've found you don't generally get far with people by pointing out that their political principles are horrendously inconsistent. In fact, it's only a tiny minority of people who care whether their political principles are consistent or not.
Daishiman 16y ago
Who told you a union supporter believes that what is "fair" to workers should also be allowable by corporations?
peppone 16y ago
depends on which union model you take german style codetermination might be ok with that or the laissez faire model not so much

guelo 16y ago

If there's going to be an unfair bias between labor and capital I'll side with labor everytime. Besides, labor has been on the losing side for a decade now, http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/09/business/20080409_LEONHARDT_GRAPHIC.html http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/09/business/200804...

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Labor hasn't been losing at all. Wages haven't gone up that much, but total comp has. Companies give their workers a greater portion of their compensation in (untaxed) insurance, rather than in (taxed) wages. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=219&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTa... Pylab made me a nice graph of total comp (based on tables 6.2D and 6.4D from http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected...): http://imgur.com/aDwkL http://imgur.com/aDwkL
- jshen 16y ago
  You should break it down by income bracket, it looks very different. http://yakkstr.com/posts/791-This-is-whats-wrong-with-America http://yakkstr.com/posts/791-This-is-whats-wrong-with-Americ...
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Your graph has even more flaws than guelo's graph. In addition to having the same flaw I pointed out in his graph (it looks at wages, not comp), it also doesn't give magnitudes at all. All it gives you is relative proportions.
    - jshen 16y ago
      I don't have time to slice it every way possible, but I found this with a minute of time on google http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012345.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10... Please show your unflawed version and tell me what point you think it is making.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Your graph shows a wage increase as well. So does the original source which your article cites (2 links deep). http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=1140 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa... The key graph: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/figure2.jpg http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/figure2.jpg I take it we are in agreement?

_delirium 16y ago

Indeed a mirror image, and possibly causally related. In the U.S. at least, the big union-organization frenzy was, perhaps not coincidentally, mostly in industries dominated by large industrial trusts that colluded with each other. It seems like a reasonable defensive reaction, even if not ideal: if your counterparts are all colluding with each other, so you have no real choice of employers, you pretty much have to collude as well if you want any chance of negotiating a decent deal. (And, often, the industrialists were colluding with local governments in addition to each other, making it even worse; especially during the period of the "mine wars".) I don't really like unions, but collusion like this is an understandable reason to form them: if the companies are all agreeing behind closed doors to do X and not do Y, the only real ways to force them (since they've removed the ability of market competition to do so) are to either: 1) pass a law banning the objectionable practice, e.g. California's prohibition of non-compete agreements; or 2) get a large enough group of people to all agree not to work for any company unless certain terms are met.

loewenskind 16y ago

A cooperation is in a much stronger position than an individual employee. Unions were created to try and make the positions more even.