4 ms·

I've often wondered why, if corporations are subject to antitrust/anticollusion regulations, why unions aren't too. In both cases an entity or entities seek to

by codex 15y ago

I've often wondered why, if corporations are subject to antitrust/anticollusion regulations, why unions aren't too. In both cases an entity or entities seek to gain sufficient clout such that the market no longer functions efficiently. Why should, say, the Boeing Machinist's Union or the UAE be allowed to monopolize the labor market of their respective corporations? Is it because there's a subtle difference between these instances?

omouse 15y ago
Because unions protect the worker from being abused. The power balance is heavily in favour of management who can fire workers on a whim. Also, the market isn't efficient. If you look at any large corporation, the amount of bureaucracy is crippling sometimes (of course some unions turn into bureaucracies which also hurts).
- smokeyj 15y ago
  If the large corporation is such a bureaucracy, a start-up somewhere will come eat their lunch. The theory of natural market monopolies is a historical fallacy. Only with the government's assistance does a monopoly exist (such as a union, central bank, regulatory rights, etc). http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly
  - omouse 15y ago
    The problem is that the startup will be acquired and thus absorbed into the bureaucracy or it will grow into that giant bureaucracy someday ;p But yeah, I see what you're saying.
  - dhume 15y ago
    As the userbase here tends towards software-based startups, people often forget that there are many markets where becoming a seller requires very large initial capital.
    - smokeyj 15y ago
      If the competition is as slow and profitable as you say, I promise investors will want a piece of that action -- and the entrepreneur will make it happen. There's no reason a deal can't be structured.. unless, it's illegal of course :)
cma 15y ago
They are; under Taft Hartley, they can't perform secondary strikes.

by codex 15y ago

omouse 15y ago

Because unions protect the worker from being abused. The power balance is heavily in favour of management who can fire workers on a whim. Also, the market isn't efficient. If you look at any large corporation, the amount of bureaucracy is crippling sometimes (of course some unions turn into bureaucracies which also hurts).

smokeyj 15y ago
If the large corporation is such a bureaucracy, a start-up somewhere will come eat their lunch. The theory of natural market monopolies is a historical fallacy. Only with the government's assistance does a monopoly exist (such as a union, central bank, regulatory rights, etc). http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly
- omouse 15y ago
  The problem is that the startup will be acquired and thus absorbed into the bureaucracy or it will grow into that giant bureaucracy someday ;p But yeah, I see what you're saying.
- dhume 15y ago
  As the userbase here tends towards software-based startups, people often forget that there are many markets where becoming a seller requires very large initial capital.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    If the competition is as slow and profitable as you say, I promise investors will want a piece of that action -- and the entrepreneur will make it happen. There's no reason a deal can't be structured.. unless, it's illegal of course :)

cma 15y ago

They are; under Taft Hartley, they can't perform secondary strikes.