4 ms·

Me personally is anti-monopoly. If a union can only operate by forming a workforce monopoly - something is wrong with the model itself.

mschuster91 6y ago
Amazon and Walmart are local monopolies as the sole employer resp. shop around where they establish their locations. It is only natural to put up a collective against that monopoly.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Can you point me to one Amazon fulfillment center or Walmart superstore that doesn't have any restaurants, grocers, autoparts stores, hardware stores, janitorial services, shopping centers, retailers, courier and delivery services, or warehouses within 20 miles? All of those businesses draw from the same labor pool and compete with each other. I don't think your claim that Walmart and Amazon have monopsony power is accurate.
drivebycomment 6y ago
By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company.
- Aunche 6y ago
  The economic term for is "monopsony," where a single buyer has disproportionate leverage. However, there isn't much evidence this occurs in most labor markets. People can and do often leave Amazon for another job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
  - drivebycomment 6y ago
    I agree - I was just pointing out the absurdity / inconsistency of the argument by AlexTWithBeard.
    - Aunche 6y ago
      The union doesn't bargain with the workers. It bargains with the company. All unions I'm aware of that have real power maintain that power by preventing their employer from hiring non-union workers.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      I don't think it is absurd or inconsistent. The UAW works very hard and effectively at ensuring that GM, Ford, and Chrysler hire as few non-union employees as possible. The UAW has monopolized the autoworkers labor market and thus have historically been able to extract great rents from it. GM, Ford, and Chrysler on the other hand can do practically nothing to prevent a machinist or welder from leaving to work at literally thousands of other companies in dozens of industries across the country that require those skills.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Employers absolutely do have more market power. Imagine if most employees bring a contract of their choosing from one employer to the rest, and employers are the ones maybe hagling over specific provisions. Really imagine that. Totally different world right? That's what it would be like if employees had more market power.
- hnunionthrow 6y ago
  I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. IF the worker wants to work for that employer, he can only do so via the union. No way for the worker to work for the employer and not wanting to do absolutely nothing with the union.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    >> By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company. > I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. That's a distinction without a difference. If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. It's just another condition of employment, just like all the other conditions of employment you'd have to abide by without a union.
    - hnunionthrow 6y ago
      Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a monopoly? > If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the union's being a better fit can join the n number of unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to remain free from the union can choose not to join, and negotiate with the employer directly.
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. The employer used its "monopoly" over its workplace to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard.
advisedwang 6y ago
"only one union representing a group of employees at a time" is a rule enforced by government, not a natural property of unions. The NLRA process [1] is predicated on a single, exclusive representative organization for any given unit of workers. It didn't always used to be this way, before such rules, there were times where multiple competing unions historically had ground industry to a halt because it was impossible for a company to make a contract that would apply to everyone and get the business back running. I find the NLRA's solution very elegant because it both improves the democratic nature of unions and helps get industry moving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159
Ericson2314 6y ago
Yes, the original problem is how did the employers get such monopsony power in the first place. If someone is proposing fixing that instead, I'd love to hear it!

mschuster91 6y ago

Amazon and Walmart are local monopolies as the sole employer resp. shop around where they establish their locations. It is only natural to put up a collective against that monopoly.

missedthecue 6y ago
Can you point me to one Amazon fulfillment center or Walmart superstore that doesn't have any restaurants, grocers, autoparts stores, hardware stores, janitorial services, shopping centers, retailers, courier and delivery services, or warehouses within 20 miles? All of those businesses draw from the same labor pool and compete with each other. I don't think your claim that Walmart and Amazon have monopsony power is accurate.

drivebycomment 6y ago

By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company.

Aunche 6y ago
The economic term for is "monopsony," where a single buyer has disproportionate leverage. However, there isn't much evidence this occurs in most labor markets. People can and do often leave Amazon for another job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  I agree - I was just pointing out the absurdity / inconsistency of the argument by AlexTWithBeard.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    The union doesn't bargain with the workers. It bargains with the company. All unions I'm aware of that have real power maintain that power by preventing their employer from hiring non-union workers.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    I don't think it is absurd or inconsistent. The UAW works very hard and effectively at ensuring that GM, Ford, and Chrysler hire as few non-union employees as possible. The UAW has monopolized the autoworkers labor market and thus have historically been able to extract great rents from it. GM, Ford, and Chrysler on the other hand can do practically nothing to prevent a machinist or welder from leaving to work at literally thousands of other companies in dozens of industries across the country that require those skills.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Employers absolutely do have more market power. Imagine if most employees bring a contract of their choosing from one employer to the rest, and employers are the ones maybe hagling over specific provisions. Really imagine that. Totally different world right? That's what it would be like if employees had more market power.
hnunionthrow 6y ago
I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. IF the worker wants to work for that employer, he can only do so via the union. No way for the worker to work for the employer and not wanting to do absolutely nothing with the union.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  >> By that definition, companies are workplace monopolies. So are you against companies ? If you want to argue you can choose a different company, by the same token you can choose a different union by choosing a different company. > I believe what GP was alluding to is that if a workplace is unionized, the worker does not have a choice of wanting to be a part of the union or not(in a non right to work state), and so essentially a monopoly. That's a distinction without a difference. If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. It's just another condition of employment, just like all the other conditions of employment you'd have to abide by without a union.
  - hnunionthrow 6y ago
    Which basically reinforces GP's point about it being a monopoly? > If you don't want to work for the union that's at a particular workplace, you can always choose another workplace. Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Why can't workers have a choice - whoever sees the union's being a better fit can join the n number of unions operating at a single employer. Whoever wants to remain free from the union can choose not to join, and negotiate with the employer directly.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Or, if unions weren't forced down onto the workers, they might choose to work with the same employer and not deal with the union. Let me put it this way: if managers weren't forced down onto workers, maybe I'd work with a different manager or no manager at all. The employer used its "monopoly" over its workplace to force management on me. That's cured by my ability to try to get a different job at a different workplace, yet somehow a closed union shop is different. It's a double standard.

advisedwang 6y ago

"only one union representing a group of employees at a time" is a rule enforced by government, not a natural property of unions. The NLRA process [1] is predicated on a single, exclusive representative organization for any given unit of workers. It didn't always used to be this way, before such rules, there were times where multiple competing unions historically had ground industry to a halt because it was impossible for a company to make a contract that would apply to everyone and get the business back running. I find the NLRA's solution very elegant because it both improves the democratic nature of unions and helps get industry moving. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/159

Ericson2314 6y ago

Yes, the original problem is how did the employers get such monopsony power in the first place. If someone is proposing fixing that instead, I'd love to hear it!