4 ms·

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 toke

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.

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.