4 ms·

Think about it this way: both sides have the right to freely negotiate a contract, and then decide whether or not to enter into it. The CEO can't prevent the wo

Think about it this way: both sides have the right to freely negotiate a contract, and then decide whether or not to enter into it. The CEO can't prevent the workers from talking to each other and figuring out what they think a fair contract would be, and the workers can't prevent the CEO from talking to other CEOs for the same reason. The specific human right is usually referred to as "freedom of association". You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

throwawaysea 6y ago
Sure but if both sides have the human right to freely associate, then the employer should surely have the right to reject associating with the union at all. But that's not afforded to them under US law, per my understanding.
- burkaman 6y ago
  "Associate" has a specific definition here that's a little narrower than normal conversation. It refers to being a member of a group, not just being connected to it in some way. The CEO is free to not join the union if they don't want to. They can also quit if they don't want to deal with it at all.
lacker 6y ago
By the same token, the company’s management is free to fight union creation, by sharing anti-union messages. Freedom of speech and assembly on both sides.
- CamTin 6y ago
  I think this is legally the case in most places, but IMO it is extremely unfair to give ownership acting through the corporate entity the same rights as employees, which are actual people.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Agreed, but in the American context, "fighting" union creation usually means a little more than just sharing informative messages.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
    "I heard Donny got both kneecaps busted after he passed out a union flyer last year" said the manager conveniently holding a baseball bat from the "baseball club" he just so happened to be involved in.
- detaro 6y ago
  Sure. the complaint here is not that Amazon shared anti-union messages. (and gets murky when it tries to force employees to consume said messages)
rayiner 6y ago
As you observe, workers talking to each other to agree on prices for labor is the flip side of the coin from CEOs talking to each other to agree on prices for labor. But the latter is in fact illegal. CEOs can't talk to each other and agree to pay $10/hour for warehouse workers. Coordinating with others to set prices for labor or goods isn't viewed as within the scope of freedom of association. Union activities are in fact specifically exempted from anti-trust laws because otherwise they would fall within the scope of them. Workers can agree with each other not to accept less than $15/hour for warehouse workers. You need something more than freedom of association to justify unions, rooted in the recognition of bargaining disparities between employers and employees.
- jahaja 6y ago
  You don't see any power disparity here?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I do. But power disparity doesn’t have anything to do with freedom of association. It’s a different basis for allowing unionization.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      But we have to realise that the common situation here is a corporation against a single individual. How is it comparable to a cartel of corporations?
    - andybak 6y ago
      You've got it the wrong way round. You start by assuming everything is permitted and then you selectively (and ideally reluctantly) bring the weight of law to bear when you discover that it's a net benefit to society. It's a correction for gross inequalities of power. That's something the libertarian left and libertarian right surely agree on - minimising the application of the monopoly of force and all that. So you assume both employers and employees can freely organize and associate. That's your starting point. Now - we've decided that the right to join a union should be protected (it evens out an existing power imbalance) and that collusion to force down wages should be illegal (because it amplifies an existing power imbalance to the detriment of society at large)

throwawaysea 6y ago

Sure but if both sides have the human right to freely associate, then the employer should surely have the right to reject associating with the union at all. But that's not afforded to them under US law, per my understanding.

burkaman 6y ago
"Associate" has a specific definition here that's a little narrower than normal conversation. It refers to being a member of a group, not just being connected to it in some way. The CEO is free to not join the union if they don't want to. They can also quit if they don't want to deal with it at all.

lacker 6y ago

By the same token, the company’s management is free to fight union creation, by sharing anti-union messages. Freedom of speech and assembly on both sides.

CamTin 6y ago
I think this is legally the case in most places, but IMO it is extremely unfair to give ownership acting through the corporate entity the same rights as employees, which are actual people.
burkaman 6y ago
Agreed, but in the American context, "fighting" union creation usually means a little more than just sharing informative messages.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  "I heard Donny got both kneecaps busted after he passed out a union flyer last year" said the manager conveniently holding a baseball bat from the "baseball club" he just so happened to be involved in.
detaro 6y ago
Sure. the complaint here is not that Amazon shared anti-union messages. (and gets murky when it tries to force employees to consume said messages)

rayiner 6y ago

As you observe, workers talking to each other to agree on prices for labor is the flip side of the coin from CEOs talking to each other to agree on prices for labor. But the latter is in fact illegal. CEOs can't talk to each other and agree to pay $10/hour for warehouse workers. Coordinating with others to set prices for labor or goods isn't viewed as within the scope of freedom of association. Union activities are in fact specifically exempted from anti-trust laws because otherwise they would fall within the scope of them. Workers can agree with each other not to accept less than $15/hour for warehouse workers. You need something more than freedom of association to justify unions, rooted in the recognition of bargaining disparities between employers and employees.

jahaja 6y ago
You don't see any power disparity here?
- rayiner 6y ago
  I do. But power disparity doesn’t have anything to do with freedom of association. It’s a different basis for allowing unionization.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    But we have to realise that the common situation here is a corporation against a single individual. How is it comparable to a cartel of corporations?
  - andybak 6y ago
    You've got it the wrong way round. You start by assuming everything is permitted and then you selectively (and ideally reluctantly) bring the weight of law to bear when you discover that it's a net benefit to society. It's a correction for gross inequalities of power. That's something the libertarian left and libertarian right surely agree on - minimising the application of the monopoly of force and all that. So you assume both employers and employees can freely organize and associate. That's your starting point. Now - we've decided that the right to join a union should be protected (it evens out an existing power imbalance) and that collusion to force down wages should be illegal (because it amplifies an existing power imbalance to the detriment of society at large)